Illegal Migration Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.

We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On his visit to Calais, the hon. Gentleman will have met people who were trying to get to this country. Did it strike him how utterly desperate many of them were, and how they are fleeing from wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and other places? Does he think that we have to address the wider issue of the reasons why people are fleeing and searching for asylum, not just in Europe but all over the world?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly points out, the key point is that these people are already fleeing desperate situations and have risked life and limb to get as far as they have. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being sent to Rwanda acts as a deterrent is clearly for the birds. In addition, he makes important points about the need for international co-operation, and finding solutions to these problems alongside our partners across the channel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

It is sadly not a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Talking about leaving or having derogations from human rights law is exactly what is wrong with the Government’s approach to this issue and what is wrong with this vile Bill.

With overwhelming support from across the political spectrum, and backed by Conservative peers and by religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other place is absolutely right to have inflicted a string of defeats on this vile, illegal Bill.

Lords amendment 1B, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, should be easy for any decent Government to accept, because it simply asks for compliance with the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our democracy. But the Government are attacking that foundation, forced to admit on the face of this immoral Bill that they are unable to say it is compatible with the 1950 European convention on human rights. By moving a motion to disagree to Lords amendment 1B, the Government are seeking to deny UK judges the right to interpret this law and to check it against compliance with the UK’s obligations under no fewer than five international conventions that we should be defending, not undermining.

The Minister in the other place tried to argue that a previous version of this amendment was trying to incorporate international law into domestic law and that, in doing so, it was an unacceptable change to our legal framework. I do not think that that is what the previous version did, but, for the avoidance of doubt, in this version Lords amendment 1B is explicit in calling for the interpretation of international law to ensure compliance with our international obligations. Indeed, Ministers will be aware of the contribution from Lord Hope, who served as deputy president of the Supreme Court and last week said that this amendment is a

“pure interpretation provision…entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions….it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1817.]

Adhering to the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, and other international laws we have signed up to should be non-negotiable. What a terrible state of affairs it is that the Government want to vote down an amendment seeking compliance with the rule of law.

The Government’s argument is that stripping vulnerable people of asylum and other human rights will stop other vulnerable people falling into the hands of the people traffickers. That is both morally bankrupt and utterly bogus. It is morally bankrupt because human rights are not earned or contingent on a person’s conduct or character, or on whether upholding those rights might affect someone else’s actions. Human rights are attached to a person by virtue of their humanity. Vulnerable people, including children, are being punished because of presumed future actions of adults. Furthermore, by disagreeing with Lords amendment 1B, Ministers face the charge of hypocrisy, as they disrespect international law and undermine migrants’ rights at a time of unprecedented international turmoil. Just last week, the Prime Minister was at a NATO summit absolutely saying that we need to uphold international law against the grotesque breaches by Putin in Ukraine. Yes, we do need to do that, but let us have a little moral consistency.

As well as being immoral, the Government’s argument about a deterrent effect is bogus and unevidenced. The Home Office’s own impact assessment, published just last month, is peppered with caveats about how undeliverable this policy is. It includes an admission that:

“The delivery plan is still being developed.”

The lack of evidence on deterrence in that document is glaring. It says that the Bill is “novel and untested”, so we do not know what impact it will have on deterrence. As I said earlier, a raft of children’s charities have pointed out that once routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. Beyond that, there is a strong evidence to show that it is the precisely the hostility towards refuges exemplified by this Bill and the Government’s rejection of Lords amendments to it that fuels the grim and terrible trade in small boats that they claim they are against.

So any Member who votes to block the Lords amendments should admit that in doing so, they degrade the rule of law, dehumanise vulnerable refugees, attack our modern slavery laws, put LGBT refugees at grave risk, and that their approach will lead to the unconscionable mass detention and treatment of children, with no stated time limit to that detention—it is sickening. I will be voting to uphold the Lords amendments, because this Bill shames and degrades our country, our democracy and this House.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I want to speak mainly about Lords amendment 1B, and to follow up on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I heard him make exactly the same argument in the Council of Europe, when, to the consternation of most of its members, he argued that Britain had to criticise and walk away from the European court of human rights because one case was found against Britain. Many more cases have been found against almost every other country that signed up to the European convention on human rights and, therefore, the Court.

I support Lords amendment 1B because it gives some protection under the 1950 European convention, the 1951 UN convention and the conventions on statelessness, on the rights of the child and on action against trafficking. The Lords amendment will mean that any decision has to be taken in accordance with those conventions. If the Government are opposing those, what message are they giving, other than that they have no respect for international law and for the conventions we helped to write and sign up for, and that they want to walk away from them? Walking away from them will mean that we have no regard for the rights of people seeking asylum if the European Court of Human Rights finds us to be wanting in that respect. Therefore, should any other country want to walk away from the European convention on human rights, for example, Turkey, Poland or Hungary, all of which have issues with their legislation in respect of the convention, we will be in no position to criticise anybody ever again. The idea that this country is facing a crisis so severe and so serious that we have to walk away from conventions that were hard fought for and have served the human rights of people across Europe very well is simply ridiculous. On a global scale, the numbers of people involved are enormous, because of economic stress around the world, wars, environmental degradation and destruction, and human rights abuse. That is why people seek asylum.

Illegal Migration Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

I will aim to complete my speech in less time than it took the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) to start talking about the Lords amendments, which is what we are here to do—but we will see how we go. I declare an interest as the chair of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.

I thank the Minister for the extensive discussions that we have had about the Lords amendments. I fear that we have not quite got there, so we may be back here again in a while. There has been an inordinate amount of debate on the Bill, and a lot of work has been done in the Lords, which is why we have so many amendments.

I support the Bill and I want it to pass, but it needs properly to balance safe and legal routes, and assurances about looking after the most vulnerable—particularly children—with coming down hard on people who are gaming the system and do not have a legitimate case for claiming asylum in the UK.

I do not have time to talk about every Lords amendment, so I will focus on two main areas: child detention, and safe and legal routes. I am pleased and grateful to the Government for the progress that we have made on the detention of pregnant women; that was a no-brainer, frankly. I also have some concerns around the treatment of people being transported back to other countries on the grounds of sexuality, and I want further assurances on that from the Minister. I also have concerns about accompanied children. There is a real problem with so-called families, who have been put together by people smugglers, as the Home Affairs Committee saw when we went to Dover. We came across somebody claiming to be the uncle of a young girl and they did not even speak the same language. There are problems here, but I absolutely want to concentrate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

I am also pleased that Lord Carlile’s amendments around retrospectivity have been accepted. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s 10-year strategy has some merit in it, but I do not think that it is for this Bill; it is a strategy for a Government rather than being for a piece of legislation such as this.

On the subject of child detention, despite the substantial discussions I mentioned, it would appear that the Government are setting out only a very narrow concession, just to give the possibility of bail after eight days to one small subgroup of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children detained on the grounds of removal only. The Government themselves said in March in guidance:

“A period of detention can have a significant and negative impact on a child’s mental or physical health and development”.

I think that we would all agree with that, so such detention needs to be used sensitively and sparingly.

This is a really sensitive issue. I think it was a proud achievement of the coalition Government when, after a Citizens’ Assembly back in 2010, David Cameron said that child detention was not acceptable and pledged to end it. It was part of the coalition programme in May 2010. Detention policy changed in 2011 and was codified in the Immigration Act 2014. Large numbers of children were being detained before 2010. There were 1,065 children being detained in 2009 alone. There was a case of a three-year-old girl who had spent 166 days of her life—her short life—in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. That was completely unacceptable, so it was right that the law was changed.

At the time, guarantees were also made in a debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Government made explicitly clear their commitment to the rationale that unaccompanied children should not be blocked from claiming asylum and would be exempt from the inadmissibility process. As the Minister set out on Report of that Bill:

“I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 311.]

There was merit in that then and there is still merit in it now.

This matter was raised as a priority issue in the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. The Minister promised us changes in the Lords. That is why we did not push to a vote the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members at that stage. However, I am afraid that the promise did not materialise in the House of Lords, and only now, with amendments in lieu, are we seeing some concessions at this late stage, which, frankly, is not good enough. That is why, I am afraid, there is some scarcity of trust in the assurances given from the Dispatch Box, rather than stuff written, prima facie, in the Bill, or in specific guidance linked to undertakings in the Bill. We need to see more details in the Bill, not just assurances from the Dispatch Box, which have not always been forthcoming.

In changing the law, we need to comply with a clear set of principles when we are dealing with vulnerable children. Children should be treated differently from adults. Any child in the United Kingdom is entitled to the same protections whether they arrive on a boat or they were born here. Whether we like it or not, a child is a child and, as such, should be subject to the safety of the Children Act 1989, which is as relevant today as it was when it was first legislated for.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I absolutely agree with the point that he has just made. This also fits in with the 1989 convention on the rights of the child, which the British Government very rapidly and quite correctly signed up to at that time. Withdrawing from that convention surely weakens that protection.

[Tim Loughton]

The paramount piece of legislation in this country is the Children Act 1989. We should be proud of it, as it is copied and envied the world over. That is how we in this country look after children who need the protection of the state for an assortment of reasons. In my book, the Children Act—I always carry it with me, and i have it here today—usually trumps everything else.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, although our compassion in seeking to help people may be infinite, the people of Southend know that our capacity to do so is finite. That capacity to help is fundamentally undermined if we do not stop the boats and we do not stop people entering this country illegally.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we do not have much time, although there is a great deal I could say on this Bill. There could not be a greater contrast than the one between the cold, calculating speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) and the humanitarian approach taken by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) in trying to defend international law and humanitarian principles in what we do.

This Bill is appalling in so many ways, but it is walking us rapidly away from the European convention on human rights and, with it, the European Court of Human Rights; from the 1951 Geneva convention protecting the rights of asylum; from the 1954 convention protecting people who are suffering from statelessness; from the 1989 convention on the rights of the child; and from the 2005 trafficking of children convention. That is why I strongly support Lords amendment 1, which was introduced by Baroness Chakrabarti to try to reverse this whole process. If we walk away from international conventions that this country knowingly and willingly signed up for—indeed, we drafted many of them—who are we then to criticise Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia or any other country where we believe there is a breach of those convention rights? What protection would we be offering to people we know are already being badly treated and whose only protection is the rights that come through those conventions? The Government are cynically and deliberately doing this.

I attend the Council of Europe as one of our representatives, and I have to say that Members of the Council of Europe from many countries—these are not necessarily people of the left, by any manner of means—are astonished at how Britain is walking away from all these conventions that it promoted in the past. The response from those at the Council of Europe is consternation about why we are doing that. It is consternation at the endless attacks on the European Court of Human Rights and on the European convention on human rights, which protects the rights of people in this country as well as other countries around the world.

This did not all come from nowhere; it came from the hostile environment, deliberately created by the Conservative party and the coalition Government, which had such a devastating effect on the Windrush generation. It comes from constant media references to the “asylum wave” and the horrible stories that are written about people seeking asylum. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others have pointed out, the number of asylum seekers in Britain is low compared with that in the rest of Europe, and the number in Europe is low compared with that in the rest of the world.

Why are there 70 million people around the world not in a place they can call their own home? The answer is: wars; human rights abuse; and environmental degradation. What are we going to do? Are we going to put up barbed wire everywhere, send gunboats everywhere, in order to try to deter desperate people? Or are we going to do something about it by trying to improve the living conditions of people in places that they are trying to flee from and improve their human rights situation? I have met people in Calais, and I have met people in this country who have come from Calais. Believe me, they are desperate. There are people who have managed to walk, almost, from Eritrea or Afghanistan. They have crossed the Mediterranean and other seas and gone through immense danger. They are looking for a place of safety—and what do we offer them? Nothing more than a hostile environment and being sent to Rwanda. Should we not look at this thing a bit differently? Should we not look at it from a humanitarian point of view?

Should we not also give refugees here the right to work? We have 100,000 vacancies in the NHS alone and a skills shortage in almost every industry, and we have highly skilled, highly intelligent people who could no longer stay in the country they came from and are looking for a place of safety. Perhaps we could be slightly more humanitarian and decent about this and accept that we have a responsibility.

We should accept that our country is enriched by those who have come here with their skills, knowledge and determination to create a better society, rather than passing this tawdry little Bill, which may well be rejected again by the Lords—I hope it is—and by the courts, knowing full well that even if the Home Secretary’s dream of sending so many people to Rwanda were carried out, they could not be housed or processed there. Can we not just turn the dial round for once and, instead of maintaining the pretence that this country was always friendly to people who are desperate, let us prove it and show that we are supportive and welcoming of desperate people who want to contribute to our community?

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22, on arrangements for removal, to Lords amendments 31, 33 and 35 to 38, on arrangements for those under the age of 18 and for pregnant women, and to Lords amendment 102, on safe and legal routes.

Where the Government have given some ground on the Lords amendments and entered into discussion, I feel confident that the main ethos of the Bill is still there. I was really keen to ensure that. I did not want to see the Bill watered down. I liked what I saw when it left this place, and I did not want to see it weakened and made unable to deliver.

On under-18s, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) made the good point that we do not want a situation where there is a perverse incentive for young people to be sent by themselves. That is concerning to both of us. Age verification needs to be robust. We know that there is evidence of adults—particularly adult men—pretending to be under 18 when they are not. No one in this House wants to see children detained, and that was never the Government’s intention, but at the same time we cannot allow an opening for people who are not under 18 to get special treatment.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), said that there has not been enough time to scrutinise the Bill. This is an urgent situation. The Bill was introduced early this year. It appears to have been stuck in the other place for a huge amount of time; I understand that they have been up until 6 in the morning looking at it. I do not know how much longer the right hon. Lady would like this place and the other place to scrutinise this piece of legislation that needs to be implemented urgently.

I find it deeply frustrating when I see individuals who have never had to live with the consequences of uncontrolled mass migration and illegal migration, and people who have never had to talk to constituents who are desperately concerned about the situation—they may have hotels in their constituency that have been adversely impacted by it—opining and moralising about what they think is right and demonising anyone who supports a Bill such as this.

As I have said many times before, the House of Lords should tread carefully, because it is unelected. It is oh so tempting to moralise on this deeply complex issue without engaging in any plan, and there is no plan from the other House. Lords amendment 102 would introduce uncapped safe and legal routes. What would happen if we had alternative safe and legal routes that people could apply to? If they were uncapped, they would fill up incredibly quickly, and if they were capped, the cap would be met incredibly quickly and we would be back at square one. We would still have people entering our country illegally. What would we do then? That is not a plan.

Let me turn to Labour’s five-point plan of vagaries and platitudes—because that is what it is. All we hear about are safe and legal routes. Then there is the cross-border police force—as if that has not already been looked into. Labour Members say, “We have to do more to talk to France”. Again, it is as if we are not already doing that. It is as if the Prime Minister does not already have a good relationship with the President of France; he has, but we still are where we are.

Illegal Migration Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

I am conscious that I need to draw my remarks to a close, so that others can speak. On the question of legal proceedings, Lords amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93 are, in the Government’s view, wrecking amendments, pure and simple. For the Bill to succeed, we have to break the cycle of late, repeated, spurious legal challenges, but the amendments would perpetuate those. Lords amendment 1 in particular removes the clear purpose of the Bill as set out in clause 1, which is to prevent and deter illegal migration. The amendment takes a wrecking ball to our well established constitutional arrangement whereby we treat international law as being separate from domestic law. The amendment would incorporate the refugee convention, the UN convention on the rights of the child, and other conventions into domestic law by the back door. It would tie up the Bill in legal knots, and result in every removal being subject to endless litigation in the courts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I feel that I have to make progress now.

Lords amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93 are all the more unnecessary as the Bill already affords adequate protections against removal to a country that is unsafe for a particular person. That brings me to Lords amendment 23, about the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. Let me say unambiguously that we treat the safety of LGBT people with the utmost seriousness, and do not want to do anything that would in any way compromise their safety and security. I regret to say that Lords amendment 23, though clearly well intentioned, misunderstands the approach taken in the Bill. With the exception of EU and European economic area nationals and those of Switzerland and Albania, people will not be returned to their home country if they make a protection claim. If a person is issued with a third-country removal notice, they can challenge their removal to the specified country on the basis that they would face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm there, including persecution. If a serious harm suspensive claim is refused, the person has an avenue of appeal to the upper tribunal. The amendment is well meant, but the concerns that underpin it are unfounded. We take pride in the UK’s support for LGBT communities globally, and our commitment to this cause remains unwavering.

Public Order

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

This statutory instrument is oppressive, anti-democratic and downright wrong. It is anti-rights legislation by Executive diktat, and it is a profound insult to people and to Parliament, of which this Government should be ashamed. In short, it is authoritarian in both style and substance.

On the substance, the police do not need yet more power to restrict protest. We need only look at what happened at the recent coronation: Ministers had to be summoned to this House to explain why police gravely overstepped the mark. As other hon. Members have set out, these regulations hand new, unprecedented powers and discretion to the police. They seek to redefine “serious disruption” from “prolonged” and “significant” to “more than minor”. This will gift the police greater powers to impose conditions on public assemblies and processions, as well as powers to consider the legally vague concepts of “relevant” and “cumulative” disruption. Requiring the police to consider all “relevant” disruption is dangerously vague and places far too much discretion in the hands of the police as well as placing an unfair burden on frontline officers. It could mean peaceful protest activities are restricted because of other forms of disruption not linked to the protest, such as traffic congestion in the area.

The so-called “cumulative” disruption that the SI allows lets police add up disruption from other protests when considering whether to impose conditions on a particular protest. That runs the serious risk of the police facing pressure from the Government of the day to restrict particular protest movements based on their content.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is making an important point about the right of protest. On the idea of giving long-term notice to the police, if, for example, an eviction is due to take place and fellow tenants arrive at the scene to support and defend the tenant due to be evicted, the urgency of that means they could not possibly gain permission in advance for their demonstration, yet that is a wholly legitimate right of protest that a neighbourhood would be performing to protect somebody.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree.

This SI comes in the wake of our official police watchdog warning that public trust in police is “hanging by a thread”. This is no time to risk increased politicisation of the policing of public order.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it has grave concerns about this measure, advising that

“the measures go beyond what is reasonably necessary to police protest activities.”

Its briefing warns of its concern about incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and of a “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of expression.

Moving on to the style—the way in which this is being done—the Government are trying to do something which has never been done before: they are trying an abuse of process that we must not permit, whatever we think of the content of the SI and the intentions behind it. The restrictions on protest rights that this SI seeks to impose were explicitly rejected by Parliament during the passage of the Public Order Bill—now the Public Order Act 2023—in February 2023. This is the very opposite of the integrity that the current Prime Minister promised when he took over. It is a blatant continuation of the casual disregard for Parliament’s democratic standards that he promised to discontinue.

My Green party colleague in the other place, Baroness Jenny Jones, has tabled a fatal motion to kill off this affront to our rights and our democracy, and it will be before that House tomorrow. Rightly, for primary legislation the unelected House of Lords is a revising Chamber. As Members will know, this is secondary legislation and it needs the approval of both Houses. Presumably, that is to avoid the type of situation we face now, where an SI could be used by the Executive to reverse a Lords revision to primary legislation that they do not like.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

No. He was not listening, was he? What happened was that they campaigned and they were given a commitment by the leader of a political party, but that was reneged upon as soon as he got elected. Where do they go? They had used the democratic process and they were betrayed—they were so angry. They went on to the streets, and they were joined by Conservative MPs. What do they do? They block roads, they sit down in the street and they threaten to sit down in front of bulldozers. That was my invitation to Boris Johnson when he was first elected, and he said, “Yes, I’ll be with you in front of that bulldozer.” Why? Because John Randall, the Conservative MP before him—by the way, he was an excellent constituency MP—said exactly that. In fact, he had raised the issue himself.

People felt completely frustrated. What I am arguing, on behalf of my constituents, is that this measure puts the local police and local protesters in an almost impossible position.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good point about the third runway. History will show that the demonstrations absolutely worked: the third runway has not yet been built. Personally, I hope it never is. There are those who say protest does not work, but the right to roam our countryside happened only because of the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in the 1930s. People took brave action to win rights for all of us. Those are the rights we all enjoy. We should not just legislate them away, which is what this law is doing.

[John McDonnell]

I welcome that intervention.

The regulations put the local police in my area, as well as local protesters and the local communities in both the Hayes and Harlington constituency and the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, in an impossible position. They seem to apply almost perfectly to our local situation. If I go through the various criteria, the first is “cumulative” impact. I am not sure how we judge cumulative. Is that over a limited period of time or a short period of time? We have been protesting there since 1978. Is that cumulative? Does the police officer have to take that into account at the local level, or should he or she set a limited timescale on that?

Coronation: Policing of Protests

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept that. I have already pointed out the operational independence of the police and I have said that briefings by the Met on the coronation were received not just by Home Office Ministers, but also by the shadow Home Secretary and the Mayor of London, all of which was completely proper.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The whole world could see on Saturday the effects of the public order legislation on policing, trying to prevent legitimate peaceful protest in a democracy. Will the Minister reply in a considered and reasonable way to say that he will undertake a full review of the operations of the Public Order Act thus far on preventing peaceful protest in this country, as an example of how a democracy is prepared to admit it has got something wrong and change it?

[Chris Philp]

No. What we saw on Saturday was the police doing their best, in very difficult and challenging circumstances, to prevent disruption while allowing and facilitating peaceful protest, which indeed went ahead.

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to see change. Sir Mark Rowley has been in post for six months and he is clear that we need to see change. We have commissioned several independent reports. Baroness Casey’s is one, but we also have the one from Lady Angiolini—she is due to report on standards and culture. These independent voices will be vital in effecting change, but it is also clear that the independent scrutiny brought about by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Mayor of London will be critical in bringing about change.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Baroness Casey’s report makes it very clear that what campaigners have been saying for years is absolutely true: black Londoners are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched by the Metropolitan police. It also calls for fundamental change in that whole policy. Will the Home Secretary explain how the Public Order Bill, which gives the police increased powers of stop and search during protests or demonstrations, fits with the recommendations made by Baroness Casey? Will she also suspend the operation of that section of the Public Order Bill until such time as the police have been able to reform their ways on the disproportionate stopping and searching of black Londoners?

[Suella Braverman]

As Baroness Casey makes clear, the majority of Londoners support the appropriate use of stop and search. As Sir Mark has made clear, stop and search is a vital tool in keeping Londoners safe and saving lives; 350 to 400 knives are seized per month thanks to stop and search. That is why I emphatically support the appropriate use of stop and search as a way to keep everyone safe.

Knowsley Incident

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The Prime Minister set out a plan at the end of last year and I am working every day to implement it. We are already seeing significant progress on the asylum backlog, with cases falling significantly with every passing week, and we are recruiting more decision makers into the Home Office to do this. We are working intensively with local authorities to find better and greater value for money accommodation through the national dispersal scheme, rather than hotels. If the hon. Lady, as a valued Member of this House, has suggestions as to ways in which we can improve the quality of service, I would be happy to meet her to discuss them.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Minister must be well aware that what happened in Knowsley is not an isolated incident; the far right is attacking hotels in other places and attacking asylum seekers regularly. We have a system that spends a great deal of public money to keep desperate people in absolute poverty and degradation in these terrible hotels—their use obviously needs to end. Will he say a word of humanity about the fear that many of these people must be facing? They are refugees from wars, famine and human rights abuses who are looking for a place of safety in this world. They are human beings just like the rest of us. Surely they deserve to be able to exercise their legal rights to seek asylum and not be constantly accused of being illegal when this is a legal right.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is, just as a matter of fact, a criminal offence to cross the channel in a small boat, so those who enter the UK in that manner are in breach of our laws. The broader point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is, of course, absolutely right: irrespective of that, those people who come here should be treated compassionately and we should abide by our broader legal obligations. The hotels and accommodation we provide are of a good quality. They will vary and if there are poor instances, I will take action against the providers. However, generally speaking, they are of a good quality and they are significantly better than what we find in comparable European countries. Many of the people who arrive on our shores in small boats have spent a sustained period in camps such as those in Calais; the way in which we treat people in this country is far superior.

Migration and Economic Development

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Neither the Prime Minister nor I are deterred from delivering on this policy, which is an essential part of our wider plans to break the business model to stop illegal migration. We have a legitimate basis for it. It has been upheld after being rigorously tested in our courts. We will continue to move quickly to honour the will of the British people.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Home Secretary says that Britain has a proud tradition of supporting asylum seekers. That is true in part, but it is not true under her tenure. She is pursuing a vile policy, which is brutal towards the individuals concerned, and continually tells us that it is illegal to seek asylum. It is not; it is clearly there in all international conventions. Will she for once have a sense of humanity towards people who are desperate and victims of wars, environmental change and human rights abuse—and exploited to boot? Cannot she just hold out a hand of friendship and understanding towards these desperate people, rather than the brutal assertion that she is making?

[Suella Braverman]

The right hon. Gentleman talks regularly about safe and legal routes being a means to an end of illegal arrivals. The reality is that our safe and legal routes have already allowed 450,000 people to come here since 2015, with 300,000 in the last year alone—the highest number that we have seen in several decades. However, that needs to happen in conjunction with deterrent policies if they are to have any effect and if we are to stop the practice of people taking lethal and unlawful journeys across the channel, jumping the queue, undermining the British people’s generosity and breaking the law.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I certainly hope that is the case. As I said, my first priority was to ensure that Manston was operating in a legally compliant and decent manner. The second priority is to ensure that, where we are using hotels, we are doing so judiciously and that officials or our contractors are applying the criteria that I and other Ministers have set down, one of which is to ensure that we avoid tourist hotspots such as that which my hon. Friend represents. Thirdly, it is essential that we exit the hotels altogether and move forward with a more sustainable strategy that ensures best value for money for the taxpayer and a fair and robust asylum system.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister confirm that to seek asylum is a perfectly legal thing within international law and, therefore, UK law and that loose use of the words “illegal asylum seekers” is dangerous for the individuals concerned?

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Council of Europe report on pushbacks across Europe of people seeking a place of safety in a number of countries, including this one? They have been pushed back and left in places of enormous danger. Will he confirm that Britain will not be involved in sea-bound pushbacks towards France that leave people in enormous danger? Instead, will he recognise the humanitarian needs of, frankly, deeply desperate people to whom we should be holding out the hand of friendship, not condemnation?

[Robert Jenrick]

The UK is not involved in pushbacks at sea; we uphold our international obligations in that respect. It is a right for an individual to claim asylum. We want a system whereby those who are fleeing genuine persecution, war or human rights abuses can find refuge in the United Kingdom. The issue that we are grappling with is the sheer quantity of individuals who are choosing to come here, leaving other safe countries such as France. That places an intolerable strain on our system and means that those individuals to whom we want to offer support find themselves in difficult circumstances.

A fair and robust system would not encourage people to come across the channel illegally in small boats. It would be predominantly based on resettlement schemes such as the ones that we have engineered in recent years for people from Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan. That is the system that I want to build in the years ahead.

Public Order Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on the use of stop-and-search powers. In them, she attempts to consult civil society organisations and consider the impact on groups with protected characteristics, as has been mentioned. That should clearly be done by the Government each and every single time they propose legislation, but they do not do it at all.

In this Black History Month, when we talk about some of the civil rights struggles of black people in this country, it is particularly offensive that, instead of reacting to them by bringing about change, the Government are attempting to provide police with even more unaccountable powers. Those are the same police who currently have extremely low trust and confidence among black communities, not least following the recent case of Ian Taylor, who died in police custody in the borough in which my constituency sits, the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, also in my constituency, the disproportionate levels of stop and search, and the treatment of Child Q and other children who have been strip-searched, as well as extensive evidence of institutionalised racism and misogyny in the police.

Just this week, Baroness Casey’s report found that many claims of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism and homophobia were badly mishandled. These are

“patterns of unacceptable discrimination that clearly amount to systemic bias”,

and they cannot continue. Those are not my words but those of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley.

We know that our criminal justice system continues to be held back by institutional racism—well, at least Opposition Members know that. We have heard about institutional racism in the policing of black communities in every single review—from Macpherson to Lammy—except the Government’s recent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which claimed that it did not exist at all.

Not only is the Bill a missed opportunity to remedy all of that profound injustice; it will only exacerbate the racial bias and the discrimination that continues to persist. That is part of the reason why I will speak in favour of a range of civil liberties amendments that seek to ensure human rights for all our citizens. I turn to new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am a person of faith, and I believe that our human rights should be universal, but when a person exercising their rights begins to infringe on somebody else’s rights, that is the point at which we know that that right is wrong. We legislate on these things in this House again and again. The idea that we could use the right to free speech to infringe on someone else’s right to get healthcare is absolutely wrong, so I am pleased to support that new clause.

The Bill continues to follow a pattern from a Government who voice support for protests all around the world but want to crack down on the right to speak up here at home. Protest is an important part of a democratic country because it is one of the driving factors that allows individuals to exercise their rights to free speech and speak up against an unfair and unjust Government—like this Government—and their laws. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which sets out that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of protest, which would address: the use of force; kettling; the deployment of horses; and the new policing powers contained in the Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. I have also signed a range of amendments and new clauses that would seek to protect our civil liberties and trade union rights, including addressing those recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and those supported by Liberty, Amnesty and others.

I draw colleagues’ attention to amendment 36, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that an act was part of a trade dispute away from the defendant and making it an element of the offence. The Government are not even attempting to sugar-coat the aim of that measure, which is trade unions. I see trade unions as our last line of defence against the relentless and accelerating attack that we see on the living standards of the working-class. The Government know that their economic policies are unpopular and cause suffering, so they want to remove everybody’s right to resist and fight back.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is making a very powerful speech in support of her amendments. I was with her at the demonstration outside New Scotland Yard following the death of Chris Kaba. It was an emotional and passionate occasion. Everyone there was looking for justice and looking for knowledge and an inquiry. Does she support more pressure on the Home Office to hurry it up, so that we can get some closure on that terrible loss of life and the pain that goes with it? The beautiful way in which his cousin spoke at that demonstration will stay with me for ever.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Far too often, families like the Kaba family have to spend months, even years, seeking answers and justice for their loved ones. I hope that in the years to come, the Independent Office for Police Conduct quickly begins to look at measures to speed up the investigations that give family members answers about why they have died. We have to remember that around the time Chris Kaba died, not to mention him too much, he was one of two men who had been killed following contact with police, and one of over 1,000 who have died in police custody or following contact with police since 1990. Since that time, only one police officer has ever been prosecuted. That absolutely needs to change.

In conclusion, the Public Order Bill is a continuation of the Government’s assault on the right to protest, further criminalising people who call for the change we need and ramping up police powers to restrict demonstrations. It could also have a very negative impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is authoritarian and disadvantages the poorest and most marginalised communities. Unless it is fundamentally amended, I believe it must be opposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful contribution with which I entirely agree.

I was just explaining about the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. New clause 7, crucially, allows the Government to propose that the Secretary of State be allowed themselves to apply for an injunction despite not being affected or being a party in the normal sense. Added to that is the effect of new clause 8, which gives the Secretary of State another new power, namely to apply to the court to attach a power of arrest and of remand to injunctions granted under new clause 7.

Let us imagine what that could look like in practice. Let us suppose that the Government set their sights on a group of countryside ramblers planning a walk headed in the direction of a nature reserve that is home to a protected species and about to be dug up by investment zone bulldozers. The Secretary of State might decide that there is a risk that the ramblers will link hands to try to close down a major bridge that is required for vehicle access to the nature reserve. The Government might then apply for an injunction to stop the walk and for the power to arrest anyone who breaches that injunction and goes rambling in the countryside—regardless of their intentions. If successful, a new public order offence will have effectively been created on the basis of potential disruption of key national infrastructure, and the ramblers concerned will be at risk of being fined or even imprisoned. I do not think that it is an over-exaggeration to call such powers Orwellian. They are anti-freedom, anti-human rights and anti-democratic.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. The right to roam would not have happened without the mass trespass at Kinder Scout in the 1930s. We owe our liberties to those who took risks by demonstrating in the first place. Every Member of this House has benefited from those liberties that came about as a result of the risks that others took.

[Caroline Lucas]

Do I agree? Yes, I do. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As someone who took part in some recreations of that trespass on Kinder Scout earlier this year, I could not agree with him more about the importance of people taking that action.

It is also important to note that while existing and expansive civil injunctions are being used with growing and alarming frequency to clamp down on direct action tactics, with a wider, chilling effect on the right to protest, the majority of civil injunctions do not give the police powers of arrest. I have repeatedly warned that the Government’s approach overall amounts to a dangerous politicising of policing, and these two new clauses are cut from exactly the same cloth. Moreover, a seemingly ideological determination to stop people standing up for what they believe in is woven through every clause of this Bill.

In my remaining time, I want to speak specifically against serious disruption prevention orders and in favour of the amendments to remove them. On Second Reading, I set out my objection to these new civil orders and said that they might more accurately be called “sinister disproportionate political orders”. Nothing I have heard since then has persuaded me otherwise.

The Government want to be able to impose such orders on individuals who have participated in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have actually been convicted of any crime. That is a massive expansion of police powers. Furthermore, the range of activities that could result in someone being given an SDPO is extremely broad. It includes actions that would not themselves be criminal but for the creation of the new, widely-drawn offences in the Bill. The threshold is so low as to be laughable, were the consequences not so grave. The conditions for imposing an SDPO include activities related to a protest that might—might—cause serious disruption to two or more people. The Bill is a massive clampdown on our civil liberties and we have to oppose it.

Finally, I wish to put on record my support for the new clauses of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and for new clause 11, which has been much discussed already this afternoon. I also want to say a few last words about new clauses 13 and 14, which I support because they are consistent with so much of the work that has been done over many years to make misogyny a hate crime and to end violence against women and girls. Sexual harassment is still at epidemic proportions. Women are disproportionately subjected to harassment, abuse and intimidation every day. Those offences are still not properly addressed by the police or the criminal justice system.

New clauses 13 and 14 would bring sentencing for harassment offences motivated by the sex of the victim in line with the approach already followed for offences motivated by race or religious identity. Crucially, they do not create any new public order offences or make anything illegal that is not already illegal; rather, they seek to ensure a serious response from the police and the courts. I hope that, in turn, harsher sentencing for those hate crimes would act as a deterrent and encourage women to report sex-based harassment, confident that they will be taken more seriously than at present.

Some 97% of women under the age of 25 have experienced sexual harassment in a public space—a huge number. There is no room for complacency. If we want to tackle hate crime against women, we must support the changes set out in new clauses 13 and 14.