Ben Goldsborough
Main Page: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)Department Debates - View all Ben Goldsborough's debates with the Home Office
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey
The Government have said that middle-class areas need to bear their share, using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government who are supposed to unite our country. This is not about class, or race, or anything else that the Labour party wants to use to silence those who are speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns, and it is appalling that Labour has not learnt from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and that of their children. The Prime Minister should listen, and Labour Members should listen. They know that these women and their communities will suffer: they know that because we already have the proof. Communities across this land have seen the lives of their women and girls ruined—ruined by the fundamental failure of this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating this Labour Government on shutting down the Brook asylum hotel—which is just 200 yards over my constituency border, and was opened on 28 September 2022 by the Conservative Government—thus ensuring that the constituencies of South Norfolk and Norwich South took into account the concerns of women, girls and all other constituents within our area?
Joy Morrissey
I would ask the hon. Gentleman why the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation has increased by 12% since this Government took over, why there has been this movement from hotels to HMOs, and what the long-term solution is.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.
Ben Goldsborough
I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done.
These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered.
Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider.
For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test.
Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a
“very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made.
Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances.
Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not.
Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary.
The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything.
A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures.
The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR.
Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Ben Goldsborough
What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.