Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I am honoured, as ever, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who has made a very passionate case. Many speakers today have focused on the legality and morality, or otherwise, of the Rwanda scheme, and the astonishing claim that this Parliament has the overriding ability to decide whether Rwanda is safe. I will focus on another astonishing aspect: the simple unsuitability of this scheme.

Last July, I was in Rwanda for a major conference on women’s rights. While I was there, I visited, with the UNFPA, the Mahama refugee camp in eastern Rwanda. Overseen by the UNHCR, this houses 60,000 refugees, largely from Burundi, but also from other countries in the region which have been suffering conflict. There are strong cultural similarities between the refugees and their hosts. Full provision is made for housing, schools, and training. There are villages led by local leaders, markets for stallholders, and a bus service to enable travel to work. We visited impressive health clinics, which covered a range of care, including minor operations, vaccinations, malnutrition care and mental health services. What is more, the local population can access these facilities, so they can see a benefit from having refugees among them.

Let us contrast this with what the UK plans to do for those seeking assistance at our borders. None of these elements is in place. It is no surprise that the Government do not want parliamentarians to visit the site, as we found. It is beyond amateur. It is in Kigali, in an unused housing development, surrounded by other housing developments for the local population. Its capacity is extremely limited, for merely a few hundred, and these will supposedly be men from diverse countries, backgrounds, languages, religions and experience—people who will have been uprooted from their countries, communities and families. How is that supposed to work? Of course, the site is not big enough to provide specialised healthcare, training, or language or cultural support—any of the facilities that such asylum seekers potentially need. It is right in the middle of the local population, with the strong possibility of mutual fear—a potential recipe for conflict and exploitation.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee refrained from speaking today because of the number of speakers, but she has mentioned to me points made by various organisations. Removing asylum seekers to a country where they do not want to be, with little prospect of work, not understanding the language, with inadequate support, increases the likelihood that they will seek to leave, or be open to offers to help them do so. Israel had an agreement with Rwanda, but no one knows what happened to that cohort. They are not there now; it is very likely that they were smuggled onwards or trafficked and exploited. The Minister says that he seeks to reduce trafficking, yet this policy opens up a new market for traffickers. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has advised that the Bill will put the UK in breach of the convention on trafficking in human beings.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have rightly said, Rwanda has made great strides since the terrible years of its genocide. Nevertheless, the UK Supreme Court has deemed it still an unsafe country—and we have heard a number of reasons why that is the case, not least from the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. We have recently granted asylum to Rwandan refugees, as my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out. Of course, it appears to be part of the Government’s narrative for the right-wing press that Rwanda is a desperate place in which to end up—acting as an apparent disincentive to those who may seek asylum in the UK. It is ironic that they then deem the country safe.

Conflict and climate change will doubtless increase migration. Working on global strategies to tackle this, as the most reverend Primate Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out, is clearly vital. Right now in central America, they are facing a massive traffic in migration. Costa Rica, with a population of 5 million, is housing a further 1 million from Nicaragua. One of the first things must be to invest in conflict prevention and development. The assistance that has been channelled to Rwanda since its terrible conflict has clearly improved the lives of many of its citizens, so there is less migration from Rwanda itself, despite the clear limits to freedom there. Yet we cut our aid budget—how short-sighted.

Others have argued with overwhelming force that the Bill offends against both morality and legality. From what I have seen of the UK’s plan on the ground in Rwanda, compared with more effective ways of supporting refugees in that very country, it seems to me that we are pouring huge amounts of money into what is almost an amateur scheme. That hardly reflects well on the United Kingdom.

Pakistan: Afghans Eligible for Resettlement in UK

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of Afghan nationals eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, who are currently in Pakistan and at risk of repatriation to Afghanistan.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, Afghans in third countries, including Pakistan, who are eligible for resettlement to the UK continue to be supported by the UK Government, and flights from Pakistan to the UK continue to take place. The assessment of the number of individuals currently awaiting resettlement from Afghanistan and other third countries such as Pakistan is not available at this time as it is operational information and changes on a regular basis.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My noble friend has submitted a series of Questions to find out what is happening to the Afghans in Afghanistan, and those who fled to Pakistan, who are eligible to come to the UK. The Answers—and I have looked at them all—have come variously from the Home Office, the MoD and the FCDO, and they are all opaque, as was the Minister’s Answer. Does this not illustrate the challenges these vulnerable people face, as well as those who are seeking to help them? His own Answer to my noble friend spoke of action “over the coming years”. Does that seem sufficiently urgent, given the danger that those who assisted the United Kingdom during our time in Afghanistan now find themselves in?

Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present these draft regulations to the Committee. This instrument amends existing regulations that relate to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which I shall call the sanctions Act. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will first set out some background to sanctions, in particular the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.

The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with it. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status; subject to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention of 1951, they cannot enter or remain here.

The 2020 regulations provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are then exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.

Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the Immigration Rules, they benefit from a similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore now in the perverse situation where someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protections than someone who is not.

I turn to the purpose of these regulations, which is to align the approach and correct this anomaly. The Government have considered how to address this and concluded that it is right that, when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act, people lawfully in the UK are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered.

However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. These regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend this instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation and for the Explanatory Memorandum. It is clearly important that the two processes—whether or not someone is eligible to have their immigration status accepted and whether or not they are subject to a sanction—should be kept separate. Can the Minister tell us whether there have already been any cases where these have become entangled? Why was this not picked up when the sanctions legislation went through the House? I recall our debates on that and do not remember this being flagged, although I remember that we had to sort out quite a number of inadvertent challenges in that legislation.

The Home Office states that this draft SI would “address a discrepancy” whereby provisions designed to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations, which the noble Lord has laid out, put people subject to an immigration sanction “in a better position” than people making human rights or protection claims under existing immigration rules. Once more, as with the other SIs this afternoon, that is a very interesting use of language: a discrepancy being in effect a mistake.

Again, I express my sympathy with officials, because of course these things happen. When departments have to shift away from their main aims at the same time as unscrambling legislation from our EU membership over 40 years, it is not surprising that this happens. I express sympathy with the officials who have had to deal with it, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, did in debates on the previous SIs.

I note that we have four officials here, who otherwise could be working on more substantial matters. I ask again, as I did in the previous debate: if we need such an SI to be processed with the manpower that we have here, how many more would we have to deal with if we removed the amount of secondary legislation that the Government propose and then had to sort out all the discrepancies that might creep in as a result? Given that 40 years would have to be unscrambled in the space of about a year, does he not think that that is rather unwise? There is nothing about leaving the EU which necessitates that, regardless of what his colleague implied. The Minister may have in his notes that same line as the rebuttal.

Leaving the EU is one thing but chucking out babies with bathwater when you do not intend to is clearly another. It happens so easily, as we can see from all these SIs this afternoon—all these discrepancies. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. This particular SI seems straightforward and we support it, but I look forward to his wider response.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for introducing the SI, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her remarks and comments. I will spend a couple of minutes setting out some background, because this is an important SI that puts right a discrepancy. Some background and some reflection on this order will be important for those who read our proceedings.

The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 provided for an autonomous UK sanctions regime following our departure from the EU. Part of that sanctions regime included travel bans, which exclude a person from entering or remaining in the UK. The vast majority of travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and who have no connection with the UK.

In a small number of cases where a travel ban is served on a person already in the UK, it impacts their immigration status; it cancels their permission to be in the UK and makes them liable for removal. A person can appeal that decision by submitting a human rights or protection claim, in line with our obligations under the ECHR and the refugee convention—again, the Minister pointed that out.

The original SI, which this one amends, made it clear how those appeal procedures would work by clarifying which court or tribunal would hear them. We supported that original SI; the use of sanctions against people who have committed some truly appalling crimes is absolutely vital but must rightly be reflected in line with our obligations under the ECHR and our commitment to the refugee convention. The previous SI provided clarity on how those cases—which were likely to be very rare—would be heard, and the SI was welcomed across the parties.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government have now noticed a discrepancy, which this amending SI addresses. If a person is subject to an immigration sanction—a travel ban—the effects of the sanction do not kick in until any human rights or protection claim has been concluded. This means that a person under the sanction keeps their immigration status and can travel in and out of the UK during that time.

Conversely, if a person who is not subject to an immigration sanction—a travel ban—is appealing an immigration decision on human rights or protection grounds, that appeal can be treated as withdrawn if that person leaves the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this means that a person subject to an immigration sanction is therefore in a better position than those who are not subject to a sanction and are appealing a decision under the Immigration Rules. The order would provide that the effects of an immigration sanction come into effect if a sanctioned person leaves the UK to bring them into line with existing provisions for those not subject to a sanction.

Whenever we have discussed this set of circumstances where a person who is already in the UK is made subject to a travel ban, we have noted that these cases are likely to be very low in number, as most immigration sanctions are imposed on individuals who are outside of the UK and do not have UK connections. Is the Minister able to give an indication of how often a travel ban has been made against a person who is already in the UK since the introduction of our own UK sanctions regime following the passage of the Bill in 2018?

Today’s SI seeks to amend a discrepancy, where someone subject to a sanction may be in a more advantageous position than someone who is not subject to a sanction but is appealing an immigration decision on human rights grounds under the Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, alluded to this and asked various questions. I would like to ask when this discrepancy was first noticed and how it came to light. Is it currently—I assume the answer is yes—made clear to a person appealing a decision on human rights or protection grounds that their appeal may be withdrawn if they leave the UK?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is clear from the Minister’s introduction that she knows how damaging the Bill is. The Government deploy a circular argument. They say they are delivering on the referendum result, and that immigration was a factor in that result, as if members of the Government had not been the ones who helped persuade the British public that leaving the EU was a good idea, and that there were risks of huge increases in immigration if we did not.

We have been clapping for NHS, social care and other essential staff. The Government are belatedly realising how important they are. It is specious for the Government now to say what they are saying about pay in the social care sector when they have not addressed it in funding. What will they say when those helping to underpin, for example, our virtual system, leave? Will they say that they just did not know? There are so many others in so many other sectors, from agriculture to warehouse distribution. We depend on the City of London for the tax revenues required for the NHS and social care, let alone the so-called levelling up of the north. Yet here the City of London is undermined.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, with things likely to get worse this winter. We choose this moment to fail to secure a deal with the EU that keeps us in the customs union and the single market, or any but the most basic of arrangements, further damaging our better businesses. Then we make it worse by introducing this immigration system into an economy which, prior to coronavirus, had record levels of employment. The Bill gives business totally inadequate time to prepare. Why is so much in secondary legislation, which is so difficult to scrutinise? It shows how unprepared the Government are that they are seeking to do it this way. They are beginning to realise the unintended consequences of their system.

The Chancellor said that he was not driven by ideology. He has recognised the support required for our economy. If only his colleagues in the Home Office could be as pragmatic, and spend their time protecting the country from the effects of that referendum. The proposed new system is deeply damaging to Britain, to the British economy and to those whom the Government say they wish to help.