Illegal Migration

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the processing of asylum claims is fundamental to bearing down on the backlog and reducing the number of people accommodated in hotels, which costs us £6 million a day right now. That is why I am very pleased that we have increased the number of caseworkers making those decisions and improved and made the process more efficient and speedier, so that we can make progress in bearing down on the asylum backlog, ensure that we save money for the taxpayer, and, ultimately, fix the challenge of illegal migration.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I take the Home Secretary back to the point about Afghan asylum seekers made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)? As my hon. Friend said, the latest ONS figures show that only 108 people have been resettled under pathways 1, 2 and 3 since the fall of Kabul nearly two years ago. At the same time, 8,429 Afghans arrived in the UK by small boats in the year ending March 2023, as compared with 2,466 in the previous year. Can the Home Secretary not see that the absence of functioning safe and legal routes means that many eligible Afghans to whom the United Kingdom owes a debt of honour, including war veterans, feel that they have no choice but to use small boats to get here? Can she not acknowledge that Home Office intransigence on the Afghan schemes is pushing vulnerable Afghans—some of them veterans, as I say—to come here by small boats?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree. I am very proud that a high number of Afghans have been resettled in and welcomed to the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2022. Almost 50,000 people have been resettled or relocated; more than 21,000 of them went through the Afghan schemes—the ACRS and ARAP—and more than 28,000 went through established resettlement schemes relating to other countries. I think that that is a good track record. There is a high number of people coming from those countries where there are troubles. The simple truth is this: there is never a good reason to pay a people-smuggling gang to embark on a lethal journey and take an illegal crossing over the channel to get to the UK.

Student Visas

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. As I said earlier with respect to the announcement we made today, we will be carrying out a consultation with the Department for Education that will give universities the opportunity to set out their case and refine the policy if necessary. He highlights one of the other elements of the announcement we made this week, which is clamping down on abuse. There are a small number of unscrupulous education agents who may be supporting disingenuous applications that are selling immigration rather than education. One measure we are taking this week is to clamp down on those with much more targeted and effective enforcement activity.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My constituents do not share the Tory and Labour obsession with net migration. They understand that Scotland benefits from inward migration. In fact, Universities UK research shows that my constituency’s net economic benefit from international students is £170.8 million, which gives the lie to most of what the Minister has said. Continuing as a member of the United Kingdom is damaging Scotland’s universities, including Edinburgh Napier University and Herriot-Watt University in my constituency. First Brexit, now this. The Union has to work for both partners, so why will the Minister not sit down with the Home Secretary and consider devolving immigration policies relating to student visas to the Scottish Parliament?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I said many times before, we have no intention of devolving immigration policy. On the broader questions, there is no material difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of unemployment or economic inactivity, so there is no compelling case for a bespoke immigration system for Scotland versus the rest of the United Kingdom. The sheer scale of the number of international students who have come into all parts of the UK, including Scotland, in recent years suggests that this Government’s policies have increased the number of international students, not diminished them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the plight of female judges and prosecutors who were encouraged by the United Kingdom to take up those roles, when they were trying to produce a democracy under the rule of law in Afghanistan. I would like to see humanitarian visas for some of those women, so that they can come to the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister seemed quite sympathetic and said he would take the proposal away and look at it. Will the Minister assure me that the Home Office would also be sympathetic to that request?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be very happy to look into that. I remember that the hon. and learned Lady has campaigned on this issue for some time, since the fall of Kabul, so perhaps a useful way forward would be for she and I to meet to discuss this further.

Public Order Act 2023

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will be taking evidence on this issue in the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow from people who were arrested under this very legislation, who had no intention of being violent or anything of that kind. It will be interesting to hear from them what they say about the operation of the Act in practice.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

One of the witnesses who will be giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow is Adam Wagner, a respected barrister. He said that the difference between the old law and this Act is that previously the touchstone for interference with the right to protest was when disruptive protest spilled over into a threat to public order and violence. Now, disruption is in and of itself defined in the criminal law as a threat to public order. That is an independent barrister giving an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly), is it not?

[Alison Thewliss]

It certainly is. When we look at how the Act has operated in its first outing, we know that although it is working as the Government intend, it is not working as some people claim it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend puts it very well: the right to protest does not extend to the right to deliberately and intentionally disrupt the lives of fellow citizens by, for example, intentionally causing a 10-mile tailback on the M25. That is not reasonable, it is not proportionate, and it is quite right that we stop it.

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not think anyone is disputing that articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR are qualified rights, but it is not just the SNP that takes the view that this Act goes beyond what is permissible under articles 10 and 11: the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a cross-party Committee that I chair, unanimously published a report saying we thought this Act went beyond what was acceptable under articles 10 and 11. So will the Minister acknowledge that this is not just an SNP view, and that it is a view held by a cross-party Committee of both Houses that this Act went too far and breached articles 10 and 11?

[Chris Philp]

I understand that the hon. and learned Lady’s Committee reached that view; clearly the Government, informed by considered legal advice, took a different view. That is why on the front of the Bill when it was published there was a statement made under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the Government’s view—informed, as I have said, by legal analysis—is that it is compliant with the ECHR. That is particularly because, as the hon. and learned Lady acknowledges, articles 10 and 11 are qualified rights and they are qualified by, among other things, the right of the legislature and the Government to prevent “disorder or crime”. I put it to this House that causing a 10-mile tailback on the M25 does constitute disorder, and I would say we are entirely entitled to protect our fellow citizens from being prevented from getting to hospital or getting their children to school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

No, I do not. I grateful for the opportunity to talk about that in more detail. Of course, there was an urgent question on the topic last Tuesday, when we debated and discussed it at some length. Since the hon. Member asks about the coronation, let me turn to that, as it is prayed in aid frequently. The most recent information that I have is that a total of 70 arrests were ultimately made on the coronation day. As I understand it, only six out of 70 were made under the new Public Order Act 2023. The others—I will not read out all of them—included arrests for possession of class A drugs; a sexual offender in breach of a condition; 14 people arrested and bailed for breach of the peace; 32 people arrested for conspiracy to cause public nuisance, all of whom have been bailed; one person arrested and bailed on suspicion of sexual assault; and one person arrested for handling stolen goods. The list goes on.

So 70 arrests were made, but only six of those were under the powers in the new 2023 Act. Of course, arrests may be made on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Much has been made of the fact that people were subsequently released. The six Republic protesters were released, and no further action is being taken. It is entirely possible for someone to be arrested on the basis of reasonable suspicion but, on further inquiries being made, it may be that the threshold for charge or prosecution is not met. Of course, in that case, no further action will be taken.

As I said in response to the urgent question posed by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) last Tuesday, we need to keep in mind the context in which the coronation took place. In the 24 hours preceding the coronation, there was a lot of intelligence—specific intelligence—about several well developed and well organised plots to cause serious disruption, including deliberately causing the horses to stampede, throwing paint over the ceremonial procession and, separately, locking on to the ceremonial route. This was a huge policing operation, with 11,500 police deployed that day, policing an enormous crowd. Things were moving very quickly indeed. Given that, the police were doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances—it was the event of a generation and the eyes of the world were upon us—and I think they did act reasonably.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister said a moment ago that only six people were arrested under the new Public Order Act and that they were the six Republic protesters with the luggage straps. When I asked my urgent question last week, we did not know about the Australian superfan who had had gone out to celebrate the coronation and was lifted on The Mall and held in prison all day. Will the Minister tell us on what basis that lady was arrested? I would be really interested to know, and I am sure that her solicitors will be as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The last 12 months have seen an unprecedented attack on the right to protest, not just with the Public Order Act but with part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which preceded it. The right to protest is part of the right to freedom of expression. In the travaux préparatoires for the European convention on human rights, freedom of expression was described as

“the touchstone of all freedoms”.

That is because it is essential for the fulfilment of all our other rights and it is also an essential underpinning of any democracy. The European Court of Human Rights has said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the “essential foundations” of a democratic society:

“it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb”.

That is the price of freedom of expression, and a democracy that loses sight of that is in trouble.

Unfortunately, across the United Kingdom, we are allowing a degree of authoritarianism to creep into our public life. We have even recently seen the police turning up at the door of members of the public to check their thinking, which is a serious attack on freedom of expression. When the police interfere with the right to protest, it is a similarly serious attack on freedom of expression.

I know Conservative Members purport to care very deeply about freedom of speech, and I am on record as saying that I think the left needs to do more to speak up for freedom of speech, but I am afraid to say I detect a degree of hypocrisy that a party that says it wants to strengthen protections for freedom of speech in the now defunct Bill of Rights and in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has passed legislation that is a fundamental attack on the right to protest, which is another crucial aspect of freedom of expression.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have huge respect for the hon. and learned Lady, who has been courageous in expressing her views on gender, with which I happen to agree. It is disgraceful that she has been cancelled and had her right to free speech infringed in many ways, but I put it to her that she is talking about people’s right to say what they want to say, rather than how they go about protesting, which is what the Public Order Act is about. She has every right to say what she wants to say, but does she have the right, for example, to use huge amplifiers in a public space for hours on end so that nobody can hear themselves think? The Act is not about content; it is about protests that infringe the right of others to go about their normal life.

[Joanna Cherry]

As others have said, it is a question of balance. I think it was a Conservative Back Bencher who, during one of our many debates over the past year on the right to protest, listed all the laws that already applied in England and Wales and the huge amount of powers the police already had to deal with disruptive protests prior to the passage of the Public Order Act and part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. On one level, we could say this legislation is quite performative, because the police could already use existing laws, but on another level it is much more than performative because, as we saw at the coronation, it could have a chilling effect on the right to protest.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous things he said about me, and I am happy to tell him that I have been uncancelled as a result of taking legal advice. For women like me who are being cancelled because we do not agree with self-identification of sex without any safeguards, it is not just a question of our right to freedom of speech; it is also a question of our right under the Equality Act 2010 not to be discriminated against because of the philosophical beliefs we hold, which an appeal court has said are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

I digress, because the point I want to make is that the right to protest is an aspect of freedom of expression. Conservative Members say they care about freedom of expression when it comes to freedom of speech in the now defunct Bill of Rights and in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, but they seem to care about it rather less when it comes to their crackdown on the right to protest.

Both those Acts and the Public Order Act, which we want to see repealed, apply only in England and Wales, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) ably explained, in her usual way, many Scots come to London because, unfortunately, the seat of power is still at Westminster and a lot of legislation is passed in Westminster on matters about which Scots feel very strongly, such as nuclear weapons, so we often come here to protest. It also matters what happens to foreigners who come to London. What happened to that Australian lady who was lifted by the police and kept in jail all day on the day of the coronation was a disgrace. I hope she has taken legal advice, because she ought to be able to get hefty damages for wrongful arrest. I can just about understand why the police might have made a mistake, but I do not understand why they did not realise their mistake sooner and why that poor woman was kept in the cells for hours on end. There is a suspicion that political pressure was on the police to crack down, and I will come to that in a moment.

At the time of the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, there were some protests when the new King was proclaimed. Many of us were concerned about heavy-handed arrests of people, both north and south of the border, who were protesting in the name of republicanism, anti-imperialism or disapproval of the behaviour of a certain member of the royal family. Some might question whether it was the appropriate time to do that, after the death of the Queen, but the right to protest is fundamental and should be facilitated. The fact that it might upset some people does not mean it should not be allowed to happen. After what happened in the aftermath of the Queen’s death, many of us warned that in future greater care would need to be taken by the police to facilitate the right to protest, particularly during the coronation. What is so awful about what happened to those six republican protesters lifted because of their luggage straps, under the locking-on provisions of the 2023 Act, is that they had gone to incredible lengths to discuss in advance with the police the nature and extent of the protests they wanted to make. They were then lifted at the start of the day and, again, held until after 11 o’clock at night. I do not understand why they had to be held for so long when a mistake had been made.

Instead of looking at the necessity of facilitating protest, what happened prior to the coronation was that parts of this Act were rushed into force with incredible haste and they appear to have been used to crack down on protesters who had gone to considerable lengths to try to clear their actions in advance with the police. As I said, there is a suspicion that political pressure was brought to bear on the police. If that was to have happened in a democracy, it would be scandalous. It is not me making this accusation, because a senior source in the Metropolitan police said that “pressure” had come from above and Sir Peter Fahy, the former chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said on Radio 4’s “Today” programme that what happened with the wrongful arrests at the coronation has to be seen in the “context” of media, political and public pressure on the police. He referred to what he called

“some pretty direct and personal feedback”

brought to bear on Sir Mark Rowley before the Home Affairs Committee on 26 April. Sir Peter, a senior retired police officer, also said, as the Opposition and the SNP have said in this House and are saying again today, that the 2023 Act is poorly defined and far too broad. That is what Opposition MPs said about the offence of locking-on and it was proved to be right by the arrest of those six innocent protesters at the coronation.

[Peter Grant]

I have no doubt that the Government will deny until they are blue in the face that any political pressure was ever put on the Met, but does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the deliberate timing of the rushed passage of the Bill through its final stages could not have done other than send a clear message to the Met that it was expected that that legislation was to be vigorously enforced on coronation day, the first major day of protests after it was put in place? Is it not the case that the Met commissioner’s statement could only have been intended to make every police officer on duty that day feel that they were under pressure to deliver the goods?

[Joanna Cherry]

That very much seems to be the case.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, the Home Affairs Committee will be conducting an inquiry on this tomorrow and hearing evidence. I am pleased that both the Chair of the Justice Committee and myself, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have been asked to join in that inquiry. I am very much looking forward to getting to the bottom of the question of whether political pressure was brought to bear, because I want to be clear: it would be absolutely unacceptable if political pressure had been brought to bear on the police. That sort of thing should not be happening in a democracy.

I will wind up in a minute. I have been speaking so far in a personal capacity, but, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I wish to point to our legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act and of part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee of six MPs and six peers—Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Cross-Benchers. We produced two unanimous reports saying that both Bills, as they were then, went too far in cracking down on the right to protest and did not get the balance right under articles 10 and 11 of the European Court of Human Rights.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I hesitate to tangle with the hon. and learned Lady on matters of law, but, given all that she has said, would she also support the repeal in Scotland of what some might say are even more draconian measures that surround protests? For example, protesters have by law to give 28 days’ notice to the police if there is to be a protest. The offence of malicious mischief has been used against Just Stop the Oil protesters, which has an unlimited fine and unlimited prison sentence. In 2021, the Scottish Government applied for restrictions to be placed on protests around the Scottish Parliament building where we have seen many arrests and, indeed, people banned for long periods for protesting. I just wondered whether her Committee or, indeed, she had a view on those matters.

[Joanna Cherry]

My Committee’s job is to scrutinise what happens in this Parliament, not what happens at Holyrood. However, I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman. It was not the Scottish Government who asked for powers to restrict protests outside Holyrood; it was the corporate body of the Scottish Parliament that asked for those powers, and I am on the record as having criticised that, so I am consistent in my position here.

I wish to go back to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said about getting the balance right under articles 10 and 11. We said:

“The current rhetoric around protest tends to downplay the importance of the right to…protest”

and instead focuses on discussions about balancing the rights of protesters against the rights of members of the public. We saw two problems with that. First, it often leads to the right to protest being given insufficient weight in the balancing compared with the rights of the public. Given that the right to protest is protected by the convention, it should be facilitated by the state so far as possible.

The second problem with this balancing is that it automatically assumes the rights of protesters are inevitably in conflict with the public interest. But that is not the case, because while protests may cause inconvenience, they are also fundamental in a democratic society to facilitate debate and discussions on contentious issues, and that in itself is of value to the public generally. We reminded the Government of the state’s duty to facilitate protest, a positive duty, and the police’s negative duty not to interfere disproportionately with protest.

I support the repeal of the Public Order Act because I believe, and a cross-party Committee that I chair supports me in that view, that it went too far, that it breaches articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR and also that there is plenty of existing legislation that the police have at their disposal to deal with disruptive protests that spill over into violence or become, in a sense, out of control. Therefore, this Act is unnecessary. I think that it was performative and that it will have a chilling effect on the right to protest in England and Wales, which is deeply regrettable.

Coronation: Policing of Protests

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the policing of protests during the coronation.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

The coronation was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of national pride and a moment when the eyes of the world were upon us. It was a ceremony with roots over a millennium old, marking a renewed dedication to service by His Majesty the King in this new reign. The coronation went smoothly and without disruption. I thank the 11,500 police officers who were on duty alongside 6,500 military personnel and many civilians.

Today, Commissioner Mark Rowley has outlined the intelligence picture in the hours leading up to the coronation. It included more than one plot to cause severe disruption by placing activated rape alarms in the path of horses to induce a stampede and a separate plot to douse participants in the procession with paint. That was the context: a once in a generation national moment facing specific intelligence threats about multiple, well-organised plots to disrupt it. The focus of the police was, rightly, on ensuring that the momentous occasion passed safely and without major disruption. That was successful. All plots to disrupt the coronation were foiled by a combination of intelligence work and proactive vigilant policing on the ground. I would like to thank the police and congratulate them on that success.

At the same time, extensive—[Interruption.] Wait for it. At the same time, extensive planning ensured that protests could take place. That was also successful. Hundreds of protesters exercised their right to peaceful protest, including a large group numbering in the hundreds in and around Trafalgar Square. Where the police reasonably believed they had grounds for arrest, they acted. The latest information is that 64 arrests were made. I will not comment on individual cases or specific decisions, but the arrests included a person wanted for sexual offences, people equipped to commit criminal damage with large quantities of paint, and arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, often backed by intelligence. The Met’s update last night included regret—to use its word—that six people arrested could not join the hundreds protesting in Trafalgar Square and nearby. The Met confirmed that those six people have now had their bail cancelled with no further action.

The police are operationally independent and it is primarily for the Mayor of London to hold the Met to account, but let us be clear: at the weekend officers had to make difficult judgments in fast time, in a highly pressured situation against a threatening intelligence picture. I thank the police for doing that, for delivering a successful a coronation and for enabling safe, peaceful protests.

[Joanna Cherry]

On Saturday, millions of people greatly enjoyed the coronation ceremony. Others, who wish to see a republic, chose to protest peacefully, as is their right in a democratic society. Protests in Glasgow and Edinburgh went off without incident. In London, however, protesters who had gone to considerable lengths to liaise with the Metropolitan police in advance of their protest to clear both the nature and the location of the protest, were detained, searched, arrested and held in the cells from 7 am until after 11 pm. All six of those arrested have now received letters saying there will be no further action taken against them. There were a number of other arrests of concern, but because there are no legal proceedings in respect of the six, and therefore no reason for Parliament not to begin today to address what happened to them, I will focus on them.

Graham Smith, the leader of the group Republic, tells me that the arresting police showed absolutely no interest in contacting the liaison team and seemed focused on luggage straps holding placards together, which they said might be used to lock on. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that public authorities, including the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to protest unlawfully and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest, so why did police arrest protesters who had gone to such great lengths to clear their protest in advance, and why did they do so on grounds that they now admit were not sufficient to charge them and without following up with the liaison team? What do citizens need to do now to clear a protest in advance?

On the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme, Sir Peter Fahy, the former chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that what happened has to be seen in the context of media, political and public pressure on the police. He referred to what he called

“some pretty direct and personal feedback”

brought to bear on Sir Mark Rowley before the Home Affairs Committee on 26 April by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—I have notified the hon. Member that I would mention him, Mr Speaker. So, was political pressure brought to bear on the police? Sir Peter also said that the legislation, the Public Order Act 2023 and the policing Act, is very poorly defined and far too broad. That was what Opposition MPs warned of, particularly regarding offences such as locking on. Will the Minister review the legislation and set up an inquiry into what happened to those six citizens on Saturday?

[Chris Philp]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. and learned Member and take her questions seriously. She asked about pressure; the police are operationally independent and make decisions independent of Government. Ministers received a briefing, particularly as the intelligence picture escalated in the 24 hours before the event. The Mayor of London also received briefings, as did the shadow Home Secretary on Friday, I believe. There is nothing out of the ordinary in Ministers receiving briefings, not least because the police and other security and civilian agencies need to co-ordinate. The House has just debated and scrutinised the legislation at some length, and there are no plans to change it.

On the six people arrested and the question of protests more generally, I repeat the point I made in my initial answer: hundreds of people exercised their right to protest peacefully. As the hon. and learned Lady said, that was done following engagement with the Republic protest group. The fact that hundreds of people were able to protest peacefully is testament to the right of peaceful protest.

I do not want to get into the details of the six people because, frankly, neither the hon. and learned Lady nor I has all the facts. But clearly, when the arrests were made, the police reasonably believed that there were grounds to do so. I emphasise again that several hundred people were able to peacefully protest on that day, as is their absolute right.

Illegal Migration Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. We value his expertise, knowledge and commitment on this issue. He has made the Bill better, stronger and more likely to succeed in our objective, which is to stop the boats and restore the public’s confidence.

It has always been our intention that the only claims that could delay removal would be the factual suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims provided for in the Bill. All other legal challenges—be they rights-based or other claims—would be non-suspensive. New clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, makes it crystal clear not only that any judicial reviews will be non-suspensive, but that it will not be open to the Court to grant interim remedies that have the effect of blocking removals pending a substantive decision on a judicial review.

In a similar vein, new clause 24 makes it clear that any legal challenges relating to a decision about a person’s age are also non-suspensive. Through new clause 25, we are taking a power to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which it can be assumed that someone who refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment is an adult. I can assure the House that we will make such regulations only once we are satisfied that the scientific models are sufficiently accurate so that applying an automatic assumption will be compatible with the European convention on human rights. On that question, I thank in particular of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who has worked closely with the Government to achieve our shared objective.

On interim relief, we are replacing the marker clause relating to interim measures indicated by the Strasbourg Court. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated on Second Reading, the Strasbourg Court is itself carrying out a review of the rule 39 process at the encouragement of a number of member states, including us. The former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who was then Lord Chancellor, and the current Attorney General, have had constructive discussions with the Court about reform, including on rule 39. However, we can and should do more.

New clause 26 will confer on the Home Secretary or any other Minister of the Crown a discretion, to be exercised personally, to suspend the duty to remove a person where an interim measure has been indicated on an individual case. The new clause sets out a non-exhaustive list of considerations to which the Minister may have regard when considering the exercise of such a discretion in that case. The Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that personal discretion. The Government expect that the Minister will carefully consider the UK’s international obligations when deciding whether to disapply the duty.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It seems to me that new clause 26 effectively introduces a presumption that the UK Government will breach international law when interim measures are handed down by the Court in Strasbourg. The Home Secretary has already said on the face of the Bill that she cannot certify that it is compatible with the ECHR, but she has declined to give evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to assist our legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Can the Minister explain to the House why the Home Secretary is so reluctant to come to the Joint Committee to justify her admission that the Bill is not compatible with the ECHR?

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government believe that the Bill is compatible. We believe there are strong arguments, and of course there will be legal debate, but were any aspect of the Bill to be challenged, we look forward to defending it robustly. We take our treaty obligations—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way to the hon. and learned Lady a second time, if she does not mind. We have been very clear that we take our treaty obligations seriously. In respect of the ministerial discretion in the clause, the Home Secretary, or whichever Minister of the Crown exercised that discretion, would of course take those obligations seriously and judge the individual case.

[Robert Jenrick]

No. As I have already said, we take our treaty obligations very seriously and the Minister who exercises this discretion would have to do so. This discretion would be exercised highly judiciously and would ultimately be judged on the facts and be very fact-dependent.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Illegal Migration Update

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On the hon. Lady’s question regarding the use of overseas development aid to pay for the accommodation of asylum seekers here in the UK, we entirely agree. It is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money and we want to see that money being put to better usage. That is exactly why we need to stop the boats—so that the finite resources of the United Kingdom can be applied to resettlement schemes where we bring people from places of grave danger such as conflict zones directly; or we use our resources to support people in some of the most hard-pressed places in the world. That is obviously the best and most moral way forward, rather than having open borders for predominantly young men who are in a place of safety in France.

As I said in my statement, we do see merits in using vessels. They have been used successfully in Scotland. It is surprising that the SNP seeks to denigrate one of its own policies, since it does not have very many successful policies—and particularly when it comes to ferries, let us be honest, the SNP is on shaky ground.

With respect to families, we do not intend to put minors or families on these sites, but they are the right way forward for single adult males. We are making significant progress on the backlog—[Interruption.] We are, actually; we know the hon. Lady does not like to deal in facts, but I can give her our internal figures, unpublished as yet, which show that over 11,000 cases in the backlog have been processed in the last three months as a result of the new processes we have put in place.

The broader point with SNP Members, as we all know, is that they have become humanitarian nimbys. The hon. Lady takes a kind of St Augustine approach: “Lord, let us welcome refugees, but not in our constituencies.” She would have more credibility if she stood up and welcomed refugees and matched her fine words with good deeds.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

You’re blasphemous, you are.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Now, now. We will just calm down before we go any further, thank you. I expect better from Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

It is not my intention to house minors on those sites. It is right that we ensure that minors and families are properly supported. Those sites will be used for single adult males, and will act as a serious deterrent to those people coming to this country.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

These proposals are highly reminiscent of the internment camps for refugees in the BBC series “Years and Years”, which was on during lockdown. In case you did not see it, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was really about the decline of modern Britain and ended with the election of a fascist populist Prime Minister.

Ukrainian refugees in Scotland have been temporarily accommodated in high-quality former ferry accommodation at Leith docks, which are adjacent to my constituency. I have visited that temporary accommodation and suggest that if the Minister were to visit, he would see that it is extremely different from the industrial barges that he is proposing. Does he appreciate that if the UK Government dump refugees from other countries into the sort of poor-quality accommodation that he is describing, the United Kingdom may face a claim of racial discrimination under article 14 of the European convention on human rights?

[Robert Jenrick]

I refer the hon. and learned Lady to the comments that I made earlier. We know that the Scottish Government used ferries. I pass no criticism of the Scottish Government for their choice in doing so; it appears to have worked relatively successfully in the circumstances, so I think it is an option worthy of consideration. Of course, we intend to meet our domestic and international law obligations, and any accommodation that we bring forward will be decent and legal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will take the points of order in a moment. I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for well over an hour, but could I ask him to remain seated for the first point of order, which I think relates directly to something he may have said?

Points of Order

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Good. Members have freedom of speech in this Chamber and they, not the Chair, are responsible for their comments. That said, Mr Speaker has repeatedly reminded the House of the need for “Good temper and moderation”, as “Erskine May” puts it. I would encourage all Members to follow that advice, particularly on sensitive issues.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 15 March, in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to invite her to appear before the Committee as part of our inquiry into the Illegal Migration Bill. On that Bill, the Home Secretary has made a declaration, as required under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, that she is unable to certify that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Committee has asked the Home Secretary to give evidence to us on the human rights consequences of her legislation, and to interrogate the legal arguments put forward in the ECHR memo that accompanied the Bill. Given the pace with which the Bill is passing through Parliament, we asked her to respond by 22 March. It is now 29 March and we have today heard that she will not be available to attend, despite our giving her more than one date, but the Government are considering whether the Minister for Immigration is available instead.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on what steps are available to my Committee to ensure that we can carry out—and we are going to be the only Committee that will carry it out—effective legislative scrutiny of the Government’s proposals in the Illegal Migration Bill, by hearing from the very person whose name appears on the section 19 statement saying that the Bill does not comply with the European convention on human rights and, indeed, the Human Rights Act?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for her forward notice of her point of order. Mr Speaker has made it repeatedly clear that it is very important that Committees have access to the relevant witnesses, and that of course includes Ministers. Therefore, I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard this exchange, and that a Minister will be able to give evidence to the Committee as soon as possible.

Bills Presented

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Oliver Dowden, Jeremy Quin, Victoria Atkins and Lee Rowley, presented a Bill to make provision about non-domestic rating.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 285) with explanatory notes (Bill 285-EN).

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Dominic Raab, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Mark Harper, the Attorney General, Edward Argar and Miss Sarah Dines, presented a Bill to make provision about victims of criminal conduct and others affected by criminal conduct; about the appointment and functions of individuals to act as independent public advocates for victims of major incidents; about the release of prisoners; about the membership and functions of the Parole Board; to prohibit certain prisoners from forming a marriage or civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 286) with explanatory notes (Bill 286-EN).

Elections (Voter Identification Requirements) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Helen Morgan, supported by Layla Moran, Richard Foord, Munira Wilson, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Jamie Stone, Sarah Green, Wera Hobhouse, Sarah Olney, Daisy Cooper, Christine Jardine and Ed Davey, presented a Bill to remove the requirement for voters to show an identity document in order to vote; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 287).

Local Electricity Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Johnston, supported by Peter Aldous, Hilary Benn, Sir Graham Brady, Alan Brown, Simon Fell, Wera Hobhouse, Ben Lake, Clive Lewis, Selaine Saxby, Mick Whitley and Sir Jeremy Wright, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an export guarantee scheme for small generators of low carbon electricity; to set a tariff, based on market rates, for the sale of electricity under the export guarantee scheme; to make provision to enable small generators of low carbon electricity to sell electricity directly to local people; to place certain duties on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority; and for connected purposes

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 288).

Illegal Migration Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Clearly the faster the claims can be assessed, the better it is for everybody, as they can be discovered either to be illegal or to be genuine victims. That is the key thing.

Clear evidence of abuse of the system needs to be published, because it is important that the figures are there to be understood. A very small number are actually claiming it, and the 73% that we were told about on Second Reading in fact refers to those who are detained for removal after arrival. That amounted to 294 people. We need to get the figures in context, then we can understand what the problem is and how we deal with it. If the evidence shows that there is an increase, we will then be able to use parts of the Bill.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the lack of an evidence base for this aspect of the Bill. When the former modern slavery commissioner, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights recently about this issue, she suggested that because no replacement for her had been appointed for over a year, there was a lack of a proper evidence basis for the modern slavery aspects of the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that she is right about that, and will he use his good offices with the Government to try to ensure that an anti-slavery commissioner is appointed?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am flattered by the idea of my good offices with the Government, and I will take that at face value—thank you very much indeed. I will speak to the Government about that, and I accept that we need to get that replacement made very quickly.

The most important point is that we need to think about exempting any victims exploited in the UK from the disapplication of modern slavery protections. There is a very good reason why that is the case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead laid out clearly, if we do not do that, those who are affected will simply dismiss any idea of coming forward to give evidence, because they will fear that they will not be accepted and that they will therefore have to go. Many of them will not yet have given evidence to the police. The Bill suggests that the Secretary of State will be able to assess whether they have given evidence to the police, but this a longish process. This accounts for more than 60% of cases, and I really wish that the Government would think carefully about protecting them. I think the police will back us on this, because they want those people to give evidence.

The irony is that the more we help those people and the more they give evidence, the more traffickers we will catch and close down, which will probably result in fewer people coming across the channel on boats. This is all part of a circle of trust, identification and final prosecution, and it is really important. We should amend clause 21 to exempt victims exploited in the UK, and the new threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision requiring objective evidence would prevent spurious claims. The whole point of this is to find a way.

I think we can agree on this. The work the UK has done on modern slavery, the evidence and all the rest of it, is now helping to prosecute the traffickers. If we lose that delicate flower of success, we will find ourselves in a worse position, with many more people being deliberately trafficked because we have become a soft touch on trafficking.

I fully understand why the Government are trying to deter the illegal use of these boats to cross the channel, both for people’s safety and because it puts huge, unnecessary pressure on services here, but I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to accommodate these concerns about modern slavery and to make sure that we do something in the Bill to protect these people in the long run.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 148, 285, 288 and 292 and new clauses 18, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 30, because my constituents and I are deeply concerned about so many aspects of the Bill. Specifically on clauses 2 and 4, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that the Bill would

“deny protection to many asylum-seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case.”

Over the years, I have worked with refugees and asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors, children and families, and the stories I have heard about them travelling to the UK involve brutal and gruesome treatment at the hands of people smugglers. They are always left deeply traumatised. I have heard stories of male children being raped. I have heard the story of a young person travelling with his brother, who was separated from him along the journey; he never saw him again, and was left worried and concerned that maybe he never even survived that journey. I have heard the story of a husband who was handed his child and saw his wife being repeatedly gang-raped—these are terrifying incidents. I have heard stories of guns being placed to children’s and adults’ heads.

These people are terrified, and have endured unimaginable conditions on their journey to the UK, yet when we hear about refugees and asylum seekers from the Government and from Members on the Government Benches, their experiences of crossing the channel to flee persecution are rarely ever mentioned. I find that utterly shameful. This Government have demonised these people, including children; they forget that these people are human, just like all of us across this Chamber. Refugees who come by boat or in lorries do so because of the lack of safe routes to the UK. They are completely vulnerable and at the mercy of the people smugglers. It is those people smugglers and criminal gangs that the Government should be focusing all their efforts on, in order to stop these illegal and criminal acts. That is why I am backing new clause 22, which would enshrine in law a new National Crime Agency unit to crack down on people smugglers and gangs.

As the MP for Lewisham East, I have talked a lot in this Chamber about my pride and joy in the fact that Lewisham Council was the first in the country to become a borough of sanctuary. Local authorities are heavily involved in the housing of asylum seekers, which is why I urge colleagues to vote for new clause 27, which would force the Home Secretary to consult local authorities when opening up asylum accommodation and hotels in their area. We have a hostel and asylum accommodation in my constituency, and when I have been there to speak to some of my constituents, I am appalled by the conditions that they are having to live in. They are not able to cook for themselves and their families, and they are not able to make the choices that families would want to. They want to provide for their families, to have their visas, to be able to work, and to have a home and to care. I am finding that so many people who are in this country as asylum seekers or refugees are beginning to suffer from mental health problems because of the process they have endured and how long it is taking, while the Government allow them to remain in those unsatisfactory conditions.

At national level, the small boats failure exists due to the Tory Government’s incompetence. It was this Government’s deal to leave the European Union without a returns agreement in place that led to a huge increase in the number of dangerous crossings and the backlog in asylum cases. I am not sure why that backlog has not been resolved; obviously the Government do not have the appetite to really push forward to make that happen.

I am further outraged that this Bill breaches the refugee convention and gives the Home Secretary power to remove unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has spoken eloquently about new clause 18, and I absolutely support the reasons that she gave and her persistence on making sure that children are treated equally and fairly and are the Government’s paramount concern.

It is clear that the Government are risking the welfare and safeguarding of vulnerable children. I therefore back amendment 148, which would remove from the Bill the Home Secretary’s power to remove unaccompanied children. I trust that many Members from across the House will back it, too. Most people want stronger border security and a caring and effective asylum system, but at the moment we have neither and the Bill does little to achieve them. Labour has a plan to prevent dangerous channel crossings and to reduce the asylum and refugee backlog. To improve this shameful piece of legislation, we must pass all the amendments I have mentioned in my speech.

Lastly, I mention the work of Together With Refugees, a coalition of more than 550 national and local organisations calling for an effective, fairer and humane approach to supporting refugees. I urge the Government to listen to it.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak to amendments 121 and 123 to 127, which are tabled in my name, and in support of amendment 1, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the official Opposition, and to which I have added my name. I tabled my amendments as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will not press them to a vote, because the Joint Committee has only just commenced our legal scrutiny of this Bill. That is not because we are dilatory in any way, but because the Bill has been bounced on us at such short notice. We have very little time to undertake that scrutiny, but we hope to report before the Bill has finished its passage through the House of Lords. At that point, I hope we will be able to recommend some detailed amendments with the backing of the whole Committee.

I did wonder whether it was worth my while spending hours in the Chamber this afternoon waiting to speak in detail to any of these amendments, as after six hours of debate yesterday, the Minister made no attempt whatever to address any of the detailed points raised by those speaking to Opposition amendments. We do not expect the Minister to agree with us, but we expect him at least to do us the courtesy of addressing what we have bothered to say, not just on behalf of our constituents, but on behalf of civic society and so on. That is how democratic scrutiny works.

There is no point in Government Members banging on about the sovereignty of this Parliament when the Government ignore most or all of the substantive points raised by Opposition Members during legislative scrutiny. That is not how a Bill Committee is supposed to work, and I appeal to the Minister to remember his duties not just to the Government and his political party, but to this Parliament and the constitution of this so-called parliamentary democracy. The way we are legislating in this House at the moment is an absolute disgrace. A Bill Committee is supposed to be line-by-line scrutiny. This fairly lengthy Bill raises huge issues in respect of our international legal obligations, as well as huge moral issues, but we have not conducted anything like line-by-line scrutiny.

If I am supposed to keep my comments to 10 minutes, I will barely scrape the surface of the amendments that I have tabled, which have not been dreamt out of thin air, but are informed by detailed legal scrutiny of the Bill by the lawyers who advise my Committee. Many of the amendments are informed by the existing unanimous report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill of Rights. This Bill sneaks in some of the things that were going to be in the Bill of Rights.

Yesterday, I spent a long time addressing in some detail the legal reasons, under reference to the convention and case law of the European Court of Human Rights, why it would breach the convention for the Government to ignore interim orders of the Court. I also explained how very rarely interim orders are passed in respect of the United Kingdom. The Minister just completely and crassly ignored every single point I sought to make. Frankly, his behaviour in failing to address any of the Opposition amendments makes a mockery of this Parliament and it makes a mockery of all their singing and dancing and fuss about the sovereignty of this Parliament.

[Simon Hoare]

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) set out a compelling argument about the sovereignty of this place, but I share the hon. and learned Lady’s concern that I think that speaks to an earlier time of how laws were made, when it was done in a far a more leisurely way, and when this place made far fewer laws and took its time. There were no programme motions, and people could take as long as they wished to. I take her point entirely, and does that not speak to the importance of scrutiny in the other place, but also of some oversight of the courts, so that if there is error in our lawmaking, the courts can point it out and we can rectify it, as and where necessary? I fundamentally agree with the point that she makes about the importance of court oversight.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the hon. and learned Lady responds, I would just say that I gave some guidance. As she knows, it is not possible to impose a time limit, but guidance was to try to get in as many people as possible.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am very grateful to you for making that clear, Dame Rosie.

Just to answer the hon. Gentleman’s points, yes, I do think that in our civilised, balanced, modern democracy, in which we have proper separation of powers, the role of the courts is very important, but the role of this Chamber is also very important. I am not too bothered about the other place. It is not elected; it does not represent people. I got elected—I went to the trouble of getting elected three times—to represent my constituents, and what I have to say about this Bill is an awful lot more important than what some unelected peer has to say. I say that with all due respect to many of the peers who I think do a fantastic job in trying to fill in the holes of the absolutely appalling way in which the Government seek to pilot legislation through this Parliament.

[Simon Hoare]

I fear I was not clear, because I was trying to support the hon. and learned Lady in what she was saying. I referenced the other place as, in a bicameral system, those in the second House provide time to reflect and give us their views, which can then consider again. However, the fundamental point, on which I thought or hoped was helpfully agreeing with the hon. and learned Lady, was the point she makes, as do others, about the importance of being able to have court oversight because we are inclined to rush our legislation in this place. Therefore, if we do get things wrong—we are only human, after all—it is important to have space for the courts to reflect, to hear evidence, and to advise and guide.

[Joanna Cherry]

I know the hon. Gentleman was trying to assist me, and I agree with him that court scrutiny is important—of course I do; I am a lawyer—but I am not going to let the Government off the hook on the absolutely woeful scrutiny that goes on, week in and week out, in this place. I am totally in favour of the bicameral system. When Scotland eventually becomes independent, which I hope will be during my lifetime, I would like to see a bicameral system in Scotland, because I like to see checks and balances, and I do not like Governments who throw their weight about and do not allow proper legislative scrutiny. That is my point and why I am spending some time on it now, because the way this has been conducted is, frankly, a disgrace. It really is a disgrace.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very grateful that the hon. and learned Lady is raising these points because, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I know that we were very keen to carry out some prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill to assist the House when it came before us, but that was not possible because it had to be rushed through, it seems, so we have had no opportunity to have evidence sessions or to do any of the work that would really help the Government. Why are the Government so frightened of proper scrutiny of this Bill, which we all recognise is so important?

[Joanna Cherry]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, and I can tell her why the Government are afraid of proper scrutiny. It is because proper line-by-line scrutiny of this Bill would illustrate that it breaches our international obligations under the ECHR, breaches our obligations under the refugee convention and breaches our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking. That is to mention just three, but there is also the international convention on the rights of the child, and I could go on and on. That is why they do not want the scrutiny. What really infuriated me yesterday was that, when some of us were actually trying to make arguments based on evidence and the law, the Minister was far more interested in parroting the populist slogans coming from his Back Benchers, which really had no basis in law and no basis in evidence, than in addressing the amendments we are trying to make.

I will spend a bit of time talking about the amendments I have tabled, because I think they are important. It is not just that I think they are important, but they reflect issues that have been widely raised in briefings from home-based organisations, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Law Society of England and Wales, and the Law Society of Scotland. I assure Conservative Members that the Law Society of Scotland is not a bastion of lefty lawyers—I wish it was, but it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

We are doing that. That is the plan that the Prime Minister set out in December, on which we are already making good progress.

Let me say two further things to the hon. Lady. First, the only way to reduce the number of people in the system is to stop the boats. No system, even the most efficient system in the world, could cope with 45,000 people breaking into our country against our laws and then seeking asylum. Secondly, the hon. Lady knows that the way to get people out of hotels is for all parts of the United Kingdom to step up and provide the accommodation that is required, but she and her SNP colleagues consistently decline to do that.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made a thoughtful and important point in his amendment 283, relating to the citizenship provisions in the Bill. I note his concerns, and we will reflect on them and come back to him. I look forward to engaging with him, but let me make this point. There is a route towards entering the United Kingdom, even for someone who, at some earlier stage, had entered illegally and been caught by the provisions of the Bill. We specifically included that to ensure that we continue to meet our international law obligations.

My right hon. and learned Friend was right to say that there is a different route and standard with respect to achieving citizenship. The reason that we did that was our belief that British citizenship is a special privilege which is not something that should be given lightly, but that if someone breaks into our country and breaches our laws, there should be a higher standard to be applied before that person gains citizenship of our country.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not going to give way again. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Lady. Let me turn to—[Interruption.] Let me turn—

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Sir Roger. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) does not like the Bill. She is going to vote against the Bill and she does not want to stop the boats. She has tabled a whole raft of amendments with her colleagues, and we all know what the purpose of those amendments really is.

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is it in order for the Minister to so misrepresent my position? I tabled my amendments as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not on behalf of the Scottish National party, and the point I wish to make is that he has not answered a single point raised by anyone who spoke from the Opposition Benches. It is a farce—a farce!

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. That is an observation, not a point of order. The hon. and learned Lady is fully aware that Members are responsible for their own remarks on the record. They have to take responsibility for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

If you will allow, Sir Roger, I understand that Members can speak twice in Committee of the whole House.

What we have heard from the Minister is utterly disgraceful. He has not presented any evidence to back up his claims or to back up this legislation. We have no evidence. There is no evidence. He has not presented any evidence. He has not presented even so much as an impact assessment of this legislation, yet he and his Conservative colleagues are about to vote against all our worthy amendments without a shred of evidence to support them. [Interruption.] He did not give the evidence. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked for evidence and he was unable, or unwilling, to present that evidence to the Committee. Which is it—unable or unwilling?

The Committee will vote to demonise, to stigmatise and to remove victims of modern slavery and trafficking from this country, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

[Joanna Cherry]

In addition to the lack of evidence, does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has failed to put forward any analysis and has completely failed to engage with any of the legal analysis that I and others put forward on the problems posed by the Bill for our obligations under the ECHR, under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and under the refugee convention? Does she agree that it is a case not just of no evidence but of no analysis? In fact, it is downright ignorance and is no way to scrutinise a Bill.

Illegal Migration Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, expounding a very Anglocentric view of sovereignty, but I will leave that to one side for the moment.

Is it not a legal flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that at least some of the people who come to this country in small boats come not as immigrants but to seek asylum? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says this Bill

“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how…compelling their claim may be”.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?

[Sir William Cash]

As I just said, I believe it is very important properly to protect genuine refugees. The problem we have been presented with over the last couple of years or so is that it is blatantly obvious that quite a significant number—I cannot put a precise figure on it, but it is very substantial and runs into the tens of thousands—have a serious case to answer in respect of their status.

[Joanna Cherry]

Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the facts simply do not support what he is saying, because the majority of people arriving in small boats who have had their asylum claim resolved have had their claim granted. That is the evidence.

[Sir William Cash]

That is certainly the case, but it is equally the case that we have 160,000 unresolved asylum cases. It is also true that there is no persecution in France on this account.

As the Government have rightly said, the Labour party voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, wants to scrap the Rwanda deal and opposes the Government’s Bill to detain and remove people swiftly from the UK. This amounts to demonstrating that the Labour party is in favour of open borders and is not on the side of the British people, who want us to deal with this problem.

The current Leader of the Opposition, in an article in Counsel on 9 January 2015, wrote, contrary to what the former Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary said, that the sovereignty of Parliament has nothing at all to do with the Human Rights Act. He clearly does not understand what the sovereignty of Parliament is, or the enactments and case law involved. Quite clearly, the statute itself was not intended to lead to circumstances in which illegal migration is not prevented but almost encouraged, to the profound detriment of practical control over our borders.

I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill in December 2021 that had a clearly expressed “notwithstanding” formula. The amendment was strongly supported by Conservative Back Benchers and would have greatly helped to ensure the flights to Rwanda. With this new Bill, we have a further opportunity to tackle the problem of illegal migration. This Bill is necessary because of the smuggling and criminality of the unscrupulous gangs that exploit migrants and cause death.

In addition, because of the consequences of the failure to control illegal migration, we have endured monumental expenditure of up to £6 million a day, disruption to local services, hotels, health services and social housing, and instances of criminality. It does no good to perpetuate a situation with such adverse consequences for our constituents and our voters, and the Government understand that.

Indeed, I am confident that, when the Bill is enacted, the courts will apply it and court procedures will be adapted accordingly, provided the intention of the words used in the Bill, as enacted, are clear, express and unambiguous, as I propose. It is not appropriate for the current situation to continue to the point where, as I have indicated in the past, the number of illegal migrants is growing exponentially.

My amendments, and further discussion with the Government, are conducive to resolving the issues properly, fairly and reasonably—with an appeal system and other measures, as I shall mention in a moment, and in line with domestic and international law—and to removing the unintended and unexpected legal consequences of the Human Rights Act and the courts’ rules in respect of illegal migration in small boats, which together have led to the breaching of our borders on an unprecedented scale. That is emphatically not in our national interest, and it was not anticipated when the Human Rights Act was originally passed. My amendment would ensure that what Parliament intends actually happens.

--- Later in debate ---

Most concerningly, listed alongside the necessity to be in the “prescribed form”, is a requirement for the application to contain “compelling evidence”. Again, I ask the Minister: does that mean that if the Home Secretary simply decides there is no compelling evidence, it is as if no application has been made at all and, therefore, there is no right of appeal? If that is the case, that means the Secretary of State can simply close down any possibility of a challenge by deciding no application has been made. I would genuinely appreciate clarity from the Minister on that point.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister has taken a careful note.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I notice the Minister is listening very carefully indeed.

Why is there a “compelling evidence” requirement? More importantly, is that not totally inconsistent with the test of real risk? That is the point of amendment 83. The danger is that even a probability of “serious and irreversible harm” will not be enough because of the type of evidence that can realistically be provided in the ludicrously tight timescale provided for.

On timeframes, we have various amendments to challenge the time periods that have been formally set out by the Government. The notion that eight days is enough time for an application is for the birds, as we know from the chaotic processes used during previous attempts to remove people to Rwanda, when many who were served notice barely understood what was happening. Language barriers, difficulties in access to solicitors and legal aid, the requirements of prescribed forms and demands for compelling evidence in the application mean that eight days will never happen. Those processes give rise to the risk that even those who could in theory make a challenge will miss out unjustly.

On that very important point, can the Minister provide clarity on how he will ensure that legal advice is accessible and, importantly, what his Government’s position is on the availability of legal aid? Those are hugely important issues that are not really touched on in the Bill.

Given the ludicrously restricted timeframes, the restrictions on “out of time” claims in clause 44 are frightening. Our amendments from amendment 101 onward seek to challenge that. This time “compelling evidence” of a “compelling reason” for missing the eight-day deadline is required. What on earth does that mean? Is an inability to understand the notice, language difficulties or the impossibility of finding a solicitor sufficient? More fundamentally, are the Government saying it is okay to remove someone who is certainly going to face “serious and irreversible harm” just because they were a few hours late with the paperwork and did not have a decent excuse for that? It makes absolutely no sense.

The seven-day timeframe for appeals to be lodged in clause 47 is equally absurd for all those reasons. Again, how will access to legal advice and legal aid be ensured? Who did the Government consult when putting together that challenging timeframe? Why have the Government chosen to bypass the first-tier tribunal? Why are the Government suggesting using first-tier employment law judges to assess difficult issues of removal and serious harm?

Some will have an even more difficult route to challenge a refusal if the Home Secretary decides that a claim is “clearly unfounded”. The clauses do not seem to make any sense. If, as seems to be the case, to make a valid application someone needs to provide compelling evidence of harm, it is difficult to see how any valid application containing such compelling evidence can be deemed clearly unfounded. Going beyond that, the grounds for appeal to the upper-tier tribunal are, again, objectionably difficult. Just to get permission to appeal, compelling evidence of serious or irreversible harm is required, assessed on the papers with no further right of appeal. Our amendments to clause 43 seek to rectify that.

We object to the Bill instructing the tribunal how to do its work, in particular how to make assessments of fact. Judges—not the Secretary of State—should determine what new matters can be considered, and what evidence and facts are relevant to their decisions. Our amendments to clauses 46 and 47 and various other clauses seek to protect the independence of the tribunal. We object strongly to the ouster clause in clause 48, in particular the restrictions on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.

Amendments 100 and 108 seek to challenge restrictions on onward rights of appeal. These are serious and significant issues of profound importance. Removing the oversight of the courts is unacceptable and unconstitutional. We had a well-developed and functioning system of appeals and judicial oversight. The Government should stop dismantling it. Instead, the Bill will leave most people seeking to assert their rights able to do so only after they have been removed. The notion that such challenges can be successfully undertaken from thousands of miles away is absurd.

The fundamental question is, what happens if someone is successful in making a suspensive case? All that clause 45 states is that they cannot be removed; it does not allow them access to the asylum process or any other assessment of their case. They, like tens of thousands of others who cannot be removed simply because there is nowhere to remove them to, will be left in limbo—a limbo that is disastrous for the taxpayer but life-destroying for the individuals involved. A desperate outcome from a desperate Bill.

Finally, although we support almost all the other amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, we have concerns about new clauses 23 and 25. New clause 23 would require the Secretary of State to use her broad discretion to put in place a fast-track asylum procedure for so-called “low grant-rate countries”. It contains an amazingly wide definition of a low grant-rate country, which would include nationalities where 49% of applicants had successfully sought asylum.

New clause 25 has aspects that are fine, but crucial to what it tries to do are co-operation agreements for the removal of people who have had claims declared inadmissible. However, there is no definition of “inadmissible” separate from the definition in clauses 2 and 4. That goes to the heart of all of the problems with the Bill. We will continue to listen carefully to what is said about those new clauses, but we are concerned that they need further work.

In short, we oppose every aspect of the Bill. We object to the outrageous timeframe for its consideration and to the lack of impact assessment before we debate it. Our amendments try to mitigate some of its worst aspects but, ultimately, it remains an unlawful Bill completely and utterly beyond repair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment 131, which stands in my name and in the name of colleagues. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for their very constructive engagement in recent days; on the basis of the commitment that I hope we will hear from him this afternoon, I do not propose to press my amendment to a vote this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); I am very glad that he has just returned from his cup of tea, because I am about to make a great speech in defence of parliamentary sovereignty in his honour.

The fact is that we need a new asylum system in our country. Indeed, the world needs a new framework for protecting the rights of refugees in an age of mass migration, with the huge people movements that we are seeing. Part of that is safe and legal routes, which are the natural corollary of the Bill; I support the principle described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and set out in his amendments to that end. I particularly endorse the work that has gone on in the Home Office—I want to see more of it—around community sponsorship. It is one of the existing global routes that we have, and we want to see it widened significantly. Even more fundamentally, the new framework that we need must honour the founding principle of both the European convention on human rights and the refugees convention: that the primary responsibility for managing asylum rests with the nation state. That is the purpose of the Bill and of my amendment.

It is worth stating why, as part of the new framework that we need, we need a law requiring the removal of people who arrive here illegally. The fact is that even if we had the best safe and legal route in the world, we would still have thousands of people—tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands a year—seeking to come here by unsafe, illegal routes. We simply cannot accommodate all those people. That is why it is absolutely right that this Bill creates a limit, with a cap on the total number of refugees we will receive. What that cap should be is up for debate, but the need for one is clear.

Unless we want open borders—Opposition Members deny that they want them—we have to do something about the many, many people who will still try to come once the cap has been reached. The only logical answer is to deny leave to stay to people who enter illegally, to detain them and to remove them somewhere safe and free: either back to their own country or to a third country that is willing to have them. That process must be swift and unquestioned. Nothing but the certainty of detention and speedy removal will deter illegal migrants and break the business model of the smugglers.

That power of removal was established in the Nationality and Borders Act, but as we know, a judge in Strasbourg was then woken in the middle of the night by a lawyer acting for an assortment of campaign groups. The judge—sitting in his pyjamas, for all we know—issued an interim order that caused the Home Office to stop the policy before the first plane took off.

[Joanna Cherry]

What the hon. Gentleman has just described is the process of getting an interim injunction in England or an interim interdict in Scotland. Is he not aware that that happens just about every day of the week in our domestic legal systems?

[Danny Kruger]

The difference is that our domestic legal systems should not be subject to the findings of a foreign court. Moreover, the process should be transparent, it should be possible to appeal and the Government should have been able to be involved in the process. For action to take place in that way is profoundly undemocratic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

Let me explain myself more clearly. There are two things profoundly wrong with what happened last June. The first is the explicit tolerance of illegality—the claim by activists, backed by Opposition politicians and by judges, that people who break into our country should be allowed to stay and settle here. The second is the idea that the laws of the British Parliament can effectively be struck down by courts claiming a greater sovereignty, in deference to a higher power than parliamentary statute: the power of international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady informs many of her arguments in this place with anecdotes, sometimes with undue success, but I will not be drawn into an anecdotal debate because I want to address the issue in a rather more serious way—I do not mean to disparage her, of course.

In addressing amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), amendment 131 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and amendment 132 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), I want to be clear about the purpose of this Bill and why these amendments make sense. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with this matter as definitively as it can reasonably be addressed. The purpose of the Bill is to tighten the arrangements in respect of illegal immigration, and the amendments strengthen that aim. Our job, against a backdrop in which people are arriving in small boats and breaching our borders with impunity, is to re-establish the sovereignty of this country and the integrity of our borders by delivering legislation that does just that.

These amendments are designed to do two things. First, they would give the Government more power to achieve this objective. Secondly, they would limit the opportunities, which we know will be taken, to frustrate the Government’s will and, by extension, Parliament’s will to do more to address this matter.

I commend the Minister and the Home Secretary for their work on the Bill, but I am certain that the expectations it creates, the time it absorbs and the opposition it will undoubtedly generate, mean that, if it fails and the Government are found wanting, Conservative Members will pay a heavy price. The Minister knows we have been down this road before with the Nationality and Borders Act, which we were told would do the job. I do not think Ministers were deceiving us—they genuinely believed it would do the job—yet, although we did exactly what I described by devoting time and political capital, raising expectations and bringing about opposition, we found that we could not achieve what we wanted to and that we needed additional legislation to do so.

We will not be given a third chance. This is our second chance to deal, once and for all, with the boats arriving at Dover and with the tidal wave—the Home Secretary described it as a “swarm”—of people who know they are arriving illegally and are breaking the law, for they know they have no papers and no right to be here. They therefore make a nonsense of an immigration system that must have integrity if it is to garner and maintain popular support.

Of course, people enter and leave countries, but they need to do so legally. Surely it is not too much to express that simple statement. It is not too much to expect a Government to maintain lawful control of our borders, yet I constantly hear from Opposition Members that this is militant, unreasonable, extreme. It is anything but. It is modest, moderate, just and virtuous to have a system that ensures the people who come here do so lawfully, and that people who arrive here seeking asylum are dealt with properly. That is a modest aim, and it will be made more achievable by the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Devizes and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

Given that the Minister is an old, trusted and good friend, I hope that, when he sums up the debate, he will agree to enter into a dialogue with those of us who speak for the people. We claim no more—no greater plaudit—than that we are the spokesmen of the hard-working, patriotic, lawful majority of the people of this country. In speaking for those people, we hope that he will enter into a dialogue with those of us who have tabled and supported these amendments with the aim of improving the Bill, of doing his work with him and for him, and in so doing honouring the pledge that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made to the people of this country. Honouring that pledge is the right thing to do, the just thing to do and, indeed, the virtuous thing to do.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Eleanor. It is convention to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I find it hard to say that because I do not agree with anything that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said. It is an extraordinary proposition to say that, to use his words, it is virtuous and just for the United Kingdom to pass legislation that is in breach of our international obligations. These are not obligations that have been imposed on us from above. They are obligations to which we freely signed up. If the Government and Conservative Members do not like the obligations to which they freely signed up, they should have the courage of their convictions and join their chums in Russia and Belarus as non-signatories to the European convention on human rights. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true: those are the other two countries in Europe that cannot live with the obligations in the European convention on human rights.

I want to make another preliminary point before I go any further. The right hon. Gentleman does not speak for my constituents—he does not speak for the people of Edinburgh South West. The contents of my mailbox and my conversations with constituents show that he does not speak for them. He does not speak for other voters in Scotland, either. We are proud of our international obligations, and we would like to remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights.

There is widespread concern about this Bill, and not just from lefty lawyers, to whom the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) referred earlier.

[Lia Nici]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I will not at this stage; I want to develop my point. I have been a lawyer for many years, and it pains me to say this—because I am a lefty lawyer —but if the hon. Lady knew much about the legal profession she would know that most lawyers are actually not lefties. However, what most lawyers do have, in contrast to the Conservative Members who have spoken so far today, is respect for the rule of law and for legal obligations freely entered into. Nobody took the hand of the United Kingdom and forced it to sign the convention. We did so freely, of our own volition. I repeat that, if Conservative Members do not like the obligations any longer, because they occasionally throw up results they do not like, they should have the courage of their convictions and leave the convention.

[Lia Nici]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I want to develop my point. I will take interventions in a moment. I do not want to take up too much time.

I rise to speak mainly to amendment 122, which is in my name, and to support the amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I also add my support to the excellent and forensic points made, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). It is a great pity that the Minister chose to take no notes while my hon. Friend was speaking, because he made some very good points and it would be really nice to hear why the Government disagree with them. At the end of six hours of debate, it is going to be difficult for the Minister to answer those points, given that he paid no attention to them and did not make any notes.

I tabled amendment 122 in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am very grateful to those hon. Members who have lent their support to it. I am not going to press it, because the Committee has only just commenced its legal scrutiny of this Bill. That is not because we are dragging our feet, but because the Bill has been bounced on us at such short notice. We have very little time to undertake that scrutiny, but we hope to report before the Bill has finished its passage through the Lords. At that point, I hope we will be able to recommend some detailed amendments.

Amendment 122 is a probing amendment that gives me the opportunity to explain to the Government the legal basis of our obligations to obey the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, because an awful lot of what we in Scotland call mince—which is a technical legal term—has been spoken about that so far.

As a preliminary point, I also want to stress the widespread opposition to this Bill. Our own Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Council of Europe all have severe concerns about this Bill’s impact on our international legal obligations. The UNHCR also has severe concerns about it, as have the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, many other very respectable civil society organisations and many of our constituents.

Over the weekend, I received a number of letters from primary 7 pupils at Oxgangs Primary School in my constituency of Edinburgh South West. The gist of their letters was that we are a wealthy nation—the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who is no longer in his place, referred to the United Kingdom as a wealthy country; it is not a country but a union of nations—and we need to do more to help refugees. As other hon. Members have said, the majority of displaced people in this world just go to the country next door. It is only a very tiny fraction who come to the United Kingdom, looking for our help. I think that what those young people were trying to say is that we have a moral obligation to them. I think they were also making the point that human rights are universal. The Government need to remember that. This Bill seeks to carve out certain categories of people to whom human rights will not be applicable in the same way as they are to me and my constituents. That is simply wrong.

The purpose of amendment 122, which relates to clause 49, is to ensure that we recognise that the United Kingdom is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine that principle. The amendment is consistent with the unanimous recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we reported on a similar provision in the Bill of Rights Bill.

It is important to set out the legal basis on which the United Kingdom is bound to comply with those interim measures, and I will take a couple of minutes to do so. Under rule 39 of the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court may indicate interim measures to any state party—not just the United Kingdom—that has freely signed up to the convention. They are usually sought in connection with immigration removal or extradition cases, and they amount to a requirement that the removal or extradition be suspended—not stopped—until the case has been fully examined. Case law from the Court has established that requests for interim measures are granted only exceptionally, when applicants would otherwise face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. They are granted from time to time against the United Kingdom, but in fact that is very rarely the case. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights received 1,020 requests from across the Council of Europe for interim measures and granted 625 of them. However, between 2019 and 2021, the interim measures under rule 39 were applied for in 880 cases against the UK, but granted in just seven of them.

This rides a coach and horses through our freely entered into international legal obligations in respect of interim measures—it really is taking a hammer to crack a nut. Interim measures appear in the rules of the Court rather than in the convention itself, which has led some commentators—including some Conservative Members —to argue that the UK is not bound to comply with them. This is particularly the case because article 46 of the convention, which concerns the

“Binding force and execution of judgments”,

only commits the UK to abide by final judgments of the Court, and does not mention interim measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I will give way in a moment. I just want to develop my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that we have been arguing about this for years. This is an important point to make.

It is sometimes assumed that this Parliament just took on the character of the English constitution when it unified with the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is worth considering that there are other notions of sovereignty. In my country, the people are sovereign, not the Parliament, and they can choose to share their sovereignty with, for example, the Edinburgh Parliament, this Parliament and other international institutions. The endless obsessing about the sovereignty of Parliament is not particularly helpful. Where I really disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in this: I think that the Human Rights Act was an elegant solution to fulfilling our rights under the convention, while also respecting the sovereignty of this Parliament.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Lady by saying that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament rests with the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that she would quite like to leave it, but, on the other hand, she is bound by it, and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 specifies quite clearly that the sovereignty is guaranteed.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Union between Scotland and England was freely entered into. I know that some people are under the misapprehension that now it is some sort of “Hotel California” situation, where we can check out but cannot leave, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Union. The views that I am expounding about sovereignty are not just my eccentric views, but the views that have been expounded by many well-respected Scottish jurists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is worthwhile sometimes to take a step back. With all due respect to some of my English friends, they get a bit hysterical about parliamentary sovereignty. Sovereignty can be shared and, ultimately, I believe that sovereignty lies with the people. I will just leave it at that.

[Laura Farris]

It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I will try to avoid too much mince in my own speech, but to continue in the respectful tone that she has struck.

I wish to take a little of the heat out of this debate and to say that I think the British people would recognise in the United Kingdom a country that has honoured its commitments since the launch of the 1951 refugee convention to offer sanctuary to those with a well-founded fear of persecution. The record of the past seven years, where close to half a million people have been granted asylum on humanitarian grounds, bears testimony to that.

I think that the British people would also recognise that there are peculiar and unique problems that have arisen with the small boat crossings. Five years ago, in 2018, 300 people made that journey; last year, it was 45,000. Of those, 80% were men aged between 18 and 40, all of whom had paid a people smuggler and all of whom had the physical strength and wherewithal to make a journey across continental Europe through the small boat route. We know that a third of them arriving last year were Albanian.

I just want to read what Dan O’Mahoney told the Home Affairs Committee—I see that the Chair is in her place—when he appeared before it last October. I am quoting verbatim. He said about the Albanian arrivals:

“The rise has been exponential, and we think that is in the main due to the fact that Albanian criminal gangs have gained a foothold in the north of France and have begun facilitating very large numbers of migrants… Whatever sort of criminality you can think of…there are Albanian criminal gangs dominating”—

in this country—

“whether it is drug smuggling, human trafficking, guns or prostitution.”

He said that a lot of the Albanian migrants

“are not actually interested in seeing their asylum claim through… We typically put them in a hotel for a couple of days, and then they will disappear”

into the underworld.

That unique and specific problem requires a unique and specific answer. We all agree on safe and legal routes. I will not improve on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in his powerful speech. I heard from those on the Labour Front Bench, for the first time tonight, that they also endorse quotas, which is part of this Bill, and we agree with that.

In case my intervention earlier was not clear enough, I was simply saying that Harvey Redgrave, writing in a thoughtful piece for the Tony Blair Institute last July, talked about not only safe and legal routes, out-of-country rights of appeal and quotas, but an absolute prohibition on small boat arrivals. That really is the disputed issue in this legislation.

I rise to speak in response to amendments 131 and 132, which were tabled by two Conservatives, one of whom, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), is in his place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I am just going to make a tiny bit of progress, because I have not really started and there is not much time.

I want to respond to amendments 131 and 132, which would do slightly different things but have the same effect. I will look at you, Dame Eleanor, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will not be offended if he has to look at my back. Amendment 131 would exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and amendment 132 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they may be relevant to decisions taken under this Bill.

I want to say at the outset that I understand the impulse that has brought my hon. Friend here—namely the frustration with the exercise of the rule 39 injunctive relief decision in July, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West covered so well in her speech. She will know as well as I do that rule 39 is not an inherent part of the European convention on human rights; she said in her speech that it is a rule of the Court.

That decision was taken by a single judge alone. The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that that is common and standard in injunctive proceedings, but it is none the less somewhat surprising to see that matter go through in the eyes of the High Court, the Court of Appeal here and, finally, the Supreme Court, and then be overturned by the decision of a single judge in Europe. We do not even know who the judge was, but we know that Tim Eicke, our own British judge who sits on the European Court, has never sat as a High Court judge. He is a barrister. I say that with deference to his brilliance, and of course I am not criticising him; that is standard for the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is odd to see our own Supreme Court, with some of the most brilliant justices in the world, being overruled, under a Court rule, by somebody who is probably not of their status. I think that is a true statement.

[Joanna Cherry]

I went on to say that in the case of Paladi v. Moldova, the Grand Chamber said that a failure to comply with interim measures amounts to a violation of article 34 of the convention, because the high contracting parties have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of applicants to bring their claims before the Court. Whereas it was originally in the rules of Court, the Grand Chamber has now said that failure to obtemper or comply with that would be a violation of article 34 of the convention.

[Laura Farris]

I take the hon. and learned Lady’s point. We are obviously adhering to that, but as a rule of the Court.

Moving on, I was glad to read recently, whether in a press release or in a tweet—I cannot recall—the Home Secretary saying she was glad that constructive talks were now taking place between representatives of the British Government and members of the European Court of Human Rights, focused on resolving that issue. I say that is good because I think it should be possible to resolve that issue, since it is a rule of the Court rather than a principle of human rights. I hope we can move on from there.

If I may say so, with great respect, I do not accept that that decision in itself justifies these two amendments. I think both are weak for legal and constitutional reasons, and I will set out why. First, on amendment 131, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said that he had relied on a paper written for Policy Exchange by Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws. I challenge the expertise of both those people—I question it. One of them has contacted me in the past, but neither are practitioners, and it shows in their writing that they are not regularly in court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

No disrespect is intended, but it is clear that they are not frequently in court arguing these cases, because if they were, they would know the way the law ran.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady and I do not agree about a lot of things, but I believe she has expertise in this area as a barrister—that is correct, is it not?

[Laura Farris]

Yes.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady has expertise and has practised in this area, so I suggest to her hon. Friends that her views deserve a degree of respect.

[Laura Farris]

On the Government side of the House, I am probably the Member who has most recently been in the immigration tribunals, so I have an idea, but it is not my principal practice area.

The other thing that I think is relevant is that Parliament has in the past successfully recalibrated the interpretation of the convention and changed the way it is interpreted, and had no difficulty with that. The Bill already takes a number of novel steps in relation to established law. First, it creates an absolute duty of removal on the Home Secretary that applies irrespective of any human rights claim, with the exception of the non-refoulement principle. Secondly, the Bill expands powers of immigration detention, granting the Secretary of State a power to determine the period that is “reasonably necessary”, in some ways overriding established Hardial Singh principles. Thirdly, it limits the rights of appeal: the individual has a right of appeal, but that is capped at one. In my respectful submission, the Government must have the opportunity to see those clauses enacted, because I believe that they will be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

Back in 2012, the coalition Government changed the immigration rules in relation to the deportation of foreign national offenders and the application of article 8, which is the right to respect for private and family life. Parliament took the view that that was too often being interpreted in favour of the ex-convict, and, as a result, set new rules—from paragraph 398 onwards of the established immigration rules—to make it clear that there were limited circumstances in which article 8 should be engaged. Parliament said in terms that the balance should be struck in favour of the overwhelming public interest in deportation, above any article 8 claim unless there were very compelling circumstances to the contrary. That was upheld in successive decisions by our appeal courts, beginning with MF (Nigeria) in the Court of Appeal.

The decision by Parliament to circumscribe the ambit of article 8 when it applied to criminals was taken to the European Court of Human Rights for years, but the court would not hear the issue at all until 2017 in the case of Ndidi. I reminded myself today of how that case was approached. In fact, a quite compelling article 8 argument was made: the person had arrived in the United Kingdom as a baby and had never been anywhere else, and the offending was quite low level—drug dealing rather than any harm to the person. The courts here had said that he must be deported to a country that he had never been to before. He challenged that in the European Court of Human Rights, which said, “No, the British Government are absolutely entitled to circumscribe the application of article 8 in the way that they have.” His claim was rejected.

My simple point is that we can do things—in the way that the Government are seeking through the Bill—that may well be compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I have struggled to find any example of the court overturning primary legislation, which is what the Bill is, or constructing it in a way that is disadvantageous to the member state. The fact that so many Members refer back to the prisoner voting case does not enhance their argument. That case is 20 years old and has been reversed. I accept without reservation that it was wrongly decided—I think there was overreach—but I have heard no example from the last 20 years to suggest that the Court is still making the same mistakes.

We have talked about the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 not being a success, but that was not because the European Court of Human Rights said that it was unlawful or overreached; we simply concluded that it did not yet work. For those reasons, I think that the Bill already goes very far and should be given the chance to work through.