Immigration and Asylum Bill

Debate between Clive Lewis and Chris Philp

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to foreign criminals, and people who enter this country illegally, having exited a safe place, namely France, I do not think that they should be given all the protections that we have been discussing this afternoon.

Let me turn to some of the specifics that the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. The changes to the immigration tribunal system, and the measures dealing with modern slavery and trying to better define article 8 constitute small steps in the right direction, but on their own, they are not going to work. Past Governments have attempted to make such measures work, but they have essentially failed, and I think that they will fail again. For example, better defining article 8 in domestic law was attempted in—I think, from memory—section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I believe created section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now, and it did not work, because judges—not just those in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges, empowered by the Human Rights Act—simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. I admire the Home Secretary’s effort to do this, but it has been tried before and it did not work.

Excluding modern slavery claims by foreign criminals has also been attempted before. The Bill essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was an attempt by a previous Government to fix this problem four or five years ago, and it has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. Because of the ECHR and the way in which it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it does not matter how we legislate. As with section 63 a few years ago, following the Home Secretary’s most recent attempt today judges will use the European convention on human rights, empowered by the HRA, to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament. The Home Secretary experienced that herself just last week, when her “one in, one out” scheme was upset by vexatious modern slavery claims. She tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance, and last week a court struck it down. The conclusion that I have reached—having suffered in the Home Office in the past as she is suffering now, trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation, and the examples that the Home Secretary gave only support this—is that the only way to fix this issue is to come out of these institutions entirely. We cannot do it by tinkering, which is what the Bill seeks to do. The previous Government tried it, I have tried it personally, the Home Secretary’s predecessor tried it, and she is now trying it again. The truth is—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

Let me finish the point. The truth is that tinkering like this does not work when we have very expansive rights-based conventions. The only way of fixing this properly is to exit the ECHR entirely, repeal the Human Rights Act entirely, exit the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—the modern slavery treaty—and say that people entering the country illegally, particularly from a safe place such as France, simply cannot claim asylum. That would enable us to legislate in this House without courts’ effectively circumventing our legislation, as they do on a near-daily basis. It would enable us to deport not just some foreign criminals but all foreign criminals, and it would enable us to deport, within a week of arrival, anyone entering the country illegally by small boat, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country if we could not deport them to their country of origin. That would be a genuine deterrent to prevent these unnecessary crossings, and would give us back control of our borders. While I share many of the diagnoses in the Home Secretary’s speech, I honestly do not think that these measures, which are incremental and an attempt to work within the existing framework, will work. Only radical solutions will actually work.

I see that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is twitching with excitement, so I think I had better give way.

[Clive Lewis]

I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am hearing the shadow Secretary of State glibly throw away 80 years of legislation on human rights—human rights that were forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. He stands there and talks glibly about throwing them out when they have protected hundreds of millions of people around the world. There is a clue. The reason they are called “human” rights is that this is the universal condition—we are all human beings—and the day we forget that in this place is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history.

[Chris Philp]

When the ECHR was first conceived and entered into as a treaty in 1950, it was developed for very good reasons. It was designed to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the second world war, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, but over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically, using the living instrument doctrine, have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of the articles, which are necessarily very vaguely worded.

For example, article 3 of the ECHR is on

“freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

When it was written, that meant “Don’t send people to concentration camps.” On the face of it, the words are very reasonable; if we were to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it is applied by judges today means that we cannot send foreign criminals back to other countries, like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals. We cannot run our border system because of the way the articles are interpreted. The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well, and that is why we have to leave the ECHR.

I do not accept the proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. This country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades but for centuries. If there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, the proper remedy is for this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them. If there is a gap in our domestic statute or our common law, and this House feels that the gap needs to be filled, the right way to do so is not by having judges make up expansive case law; it is by having this democratically elected parliament debate the issue, as we are doing now, and take a vote on it. That is the way in which democracy should function.

I think that one of the reasons mainstream politics is coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is that pledges made at elections, by successive Governments, on issues like immigration do not get delivered. One of the reasons why is that the human rights legal framework prevents them from being delivered. The Home Secretary gave examples of that, and it is essentially a democratic deficit; this Parliament, not judges, should decide how our borders are run. While I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think that they will work. I do not think that the measures in this Bill go far enough, because they do not address the fundamental problem.

Coronation: Policing of Protests

Debate between Clive Lewis and Chris Philp

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I recommend that Members on both sides of the House read the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s article in today’s Evening Standard robustly setting out the background and defending the police’s approach to the coronation. My hon. Friend refers to the expression of regret that those six people were unable to join the hundreds of others who protested peacefully. Those hundreds of others were exercising their right to peaceful protest, as they are perfectly entitled to do. It is worth mentioning in passing, as he did, that they were in a tiny, tiny minority, but that does not undermine their right to protest if they so choose.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

This is obvious to anyone who looks at it; we take a piece of draconian legislation, such as the Public Order Bill, we rush it through this place, via an unelected Head of State, who gave it consent, and we hand it to a failing institution such as the Metropolitan police, who then decapitate the leadership of the republican protest movement. What do we expect? This piece of legislation is doing exactly what it says on the tin: it is stopping peaceful protest.

[Chris Philp]

That is absolute nonsense. This legislation is preventing disruption to the lives of our fellow citizens. I wholly repudiate the suggestion that it was rushed through; there was extensive ping-pong, which I do not recall the hon. Gentleman turning up to, although he is so concerned about scrutiny. As for his comment about the process for a Bill gaining Royal Assent, I will not dignify that with a response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Lewis and Chris Philp

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is right: we are of course doubling the sentence for assaulting—for the common assault of—an emergency worker from one year to two years, which I think is widely welcomed across the House. In relation to other people who deal with the public—not just retail workers, but transport workers, teachers, postmen and women and other people who deal with the public—that is already taken account of in the Sentencing Council guidelines, which makes it an aggravating factor if the victim deals with the public. Therefore, judges can reflect that when handing down sentences. There is a Westminster Hall debate later on today on this very topic, and I am very much looking forward to discussing it in more detail then.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

What rights will be protected for EU citizens and non-EU family members unable to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the 30 June 2021 deadline.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

In relation to EU citizens who are granted EUSS status, where their family who are not EU citizens reside in the United Kingdom, they can apply for EUSS status as well. For close family members who are not in the United Kingdom at present, they are able to join the person who is granted EUSS status. If it is a child under the age of 21, that is automatic. If it is parents, grandparents or children over the age of 21 where there is a degree of dependency, they can join as well. So I think those are extremely generous arrangements—far more generous than the arrangements for other cohorts of people.

[Clive Lewis [V]]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Even where the guidance provides a route back to status, it will not protect EU citizens who missed the deadline from hostile environment policies, or prevent them from being denied access to homelessness assistance and free NHS care, as recently confirmed by other Departments. Will the Minister assure the House that EU citizens and non-EU family members who miss the deadline will maintain the right to such assistance, and be able to continue working without fear of criminal liability?

[Chris Philp]

On the deadline, I will repeat what I said earlier: the critical thing is to encourage constituents, very strongly, to apply by that deadline. If somebody misses the deadline, of course they can apply where they have reasonable grounds to do so. Guidance is about to be published on precisely what will happen to those who miss the deadline. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to take a reasonable and proportionate approach, and I ask him to wait just a short time until that guidance is published.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Debate between Clive Lewis and Chris Philp

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner and advocate on this issue—I can testify to that as a Home Office Minister—and her analysis is essentially correct. The three strands of work she just outlines are the three we are pursuing. Some will require new techniques to be deployed on the water, which we are trialling at the moment, and some might require legislation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned a moment ago, and we are prepared to legislate.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]]

The UK needs to do more, not less, to provide sanctuary for refugees, given the world’s growing ecological and economic crises. Instead, the Government are dehumanising these people by presenting them as an illegal threat. This is a dangerous path and one that goes completely against the ideals we should be aspiring to: empathy and humanity. Why can the Minister and the Government not see this?

[Chris Philp]

Where people have a genuine fear of persecution, where they are fleeing to our shores and need our protection, or where we encounter them directly in dangerous areas, we are of course prepared to offer protection, as we did via the resettlement scheme, but that in no way removes, dilutes or diminishes our obligation and determination to protect our borders from illegal immigration. This Parliament and this country will decide who comes here, not ruthless people smugglers, and I call on the hon. Member and the whole Labour party to assist us and work with us in protecting and defending our country’s borders.