Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.

The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.

A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?

In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.

That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

I absolutely agree. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for new 21 for all four reasons that, between us, my hon. Friend and I have stated.

[Tom Hayes]

So late in the day, with so much said, I am going to take a direction that differs from that taken by some of my colleagues. I want to talk about what border security means for us as a country.

The playwright James Graham says that our country is only the story that we tell about ourselves. With the Conservatives, we were told a story of hopelessness, despair and scapegoating. People were left to believe that we should be frightened by the challenges we face, frightened by our inability to meet them, and frightened by the setbacks that we face and what they say about who we are and where we are going. That is why it is so important for this Labour Government to be correcting that narrative. Getting a grip on our borders, closing asylum hotels, bringing the asylum bill down: those are the basics that people expect. They are what make people feel confident, not frightened—secure, not susceptible to those on the Opposition Benches who would peddle empty promises and, ultimately, let the British people down.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Hayes]

No.

For me, border security sits alongside fixing potholes, tackling graffiti and fly-tipping, and stopping e-scooter and e-bike speeding. It is obviously more complicated—for one thing, it involves a great deal of international negotiation—but border security is security. It is vital for people’s safety and pride. It underpins so much. If people cannot rely on the basics, they cannot begin to enjoy everything else that life has to offer. If people cannot see pledges being kept, promises being delivered and things being improved where they live, they will not just lose trust; they will succumb to hopelessness. We must not allow the spirit of our people to break. We must get the basics right, and with the Bill we will do that.

We will secure our borders with this Bill and these amendments. We will have new powers on seizing electronic devices, a new law to protect life at sea, a new statutory border security command, tougher action on foreign national sex offenders, and the ending of asylum hotels that cost eye-watering sums. It is in our national interest to get our borders back under control against criminal smuggler gangs.

In order to understand the politics of where we are, I have been looking back at old debates, and Conservative Members may enjoy hearing what I am about to say. With our policies and politics on border security, as with much else, I feel that we could benefit from listening to a question that was put by the first Earl of Stockton in his maiden speech in the other place in 1985. He said:

“Should we just slowly and majestically sink…like a great ship—or shall we make a new determined and united effort… Let us do the latter and then historians of the future will not describe…the decline and fall of Britain but…the beginning of a new and glorious renaissance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 254.]

As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I want to work with all in this place who share the former Conservative Prime Minister’s moderation and determination to have a united effort to bring about a better Britain. That involves fixing the basics, such as border security. After all, it would be an absurdity for small boats to sink a bigger ship.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The trafficking gangs that profit from the most vulnerable refugees do not care if the people on those boats live or die. It is obvious that we all want to see the end of this horrendous crime, but those who travel are not bad people; they are desperate. It is understandable that communities who see groups of mainly young men being economically inactive will be frustrated and angry, but asylum seekers are not responsible for people not getting a doctor’s appointment—it is the people who traffic them.

When I was the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, I backed the Lift the Ban coalition and met an inspiring young man from Cameroon who had arrived here legitimately on a student visa. While he was here, his village was torched and his uncle killed. He could not return home, so he claimed asylum from where he was in the midlands. He was immediately relocated to a hotel in Bournemouth and refused the ability to work—something that he had done legitimately right up to that point. Letting him work would allow him to contribute to our community, instead of being a great drain on it.

I will speak to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 24 and 33, which relate to our work with international partners. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently learned more about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 99 covers the prohibition of the transport of slaves, but it does not cover human trafficking. Around the world, our international partnerships are being hamstrung as a result, and I urge the Minister to look at how we could use Interpol as a route towards developing UNCLOS further.

Finally, I will speak against new clause 16, which would increase the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. This would mean that the average police officer, research scientist or nurse outside London—in places such as Mid Dorset and North Poole—would not be able to get a visa for their spouse. I was pleased that the Government paused the proposal and left the threshold at £29,000, as I am concerned that we could see a brain drain among many British professionals who choose to leave the UK for their partners’ homes countries, where they will be welcome.

I want to speak about the armed forces personnel I have met both in the constituency and through the AFPS, particularly those coming from Commonwealth countries. They have answered our call to fight for our country, but they are forced to leave their spouses behind, as the lower threshold provided for them only applies after an extended period of service. Pushing that threshold up to £38,000 would take reunification out of their reach, too. The current threshold ensures that families who can support themselves can stay together, and I urge the Government to leave it where it is.