The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
(Con) My Lords, before we move on, I will make some remarks about
devolution and this Bill. I begin by placing on record my thanks to
the devolved Administrations for their engagement at both official
and ministerial level. The majority of the Bill’s provisions apply
across the UK. Some clauses extend only to England and Wales
because the relevant policy areas relate to matters that are
devolved in...Request free trial
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, before we move on, I will make some remarks about
devolution and this Bill. I begin by placing on record my thanks
to the devolved Administrations for their engagement at both
official and ministerial level.
The majority of the Bill’s provisions apply across the UK. Some
clauses extend only to England and Wales because the relevant
policy areas relate to matters that are devolved in Scotland and
Northern Ireland. These are: civil legal services; arrangements
for prisoners who are liable to removal from the United Kingdom;
and some specific measures relating to support for potential
victims of modern slavery.
I want to be clear that, in the view of the UK Government, the
provisions of the Bill that have UK-wide application relate
strictly to reserved matters. This means that none of the Bill’s
provisions engage the legislative consent process. We have
therefore not sought legislative consent from the devolved
legislatures.
I advise your Lordships’ House that the Scottish Parliament has
approved a Motion, lodged by the Scottish Government, to withhold
legislative consent in respect of specific measures relating to
age assessment and modern slavery. But it is the view of the UK
Government that these measures relate strictly to reserved
matters and therefore did not engage the legislative consent
Motion process and do not require legislative consent.
The Senedd Cymru has also approved a Motion, lodged by the Welsh
Government, to withhold legislative consent in respect of
specific measures relating to age assessment and to powers to
make consequential provisions. Again, in the view of the UK
Government, these measures relate to reserved matters and
therefore did not engage the legislative consent Motion process
and do not require legislative consent.
For the sake of completeness, I will say that the Northern
Ireland Executive has not lodged a Motion relating to the Bill in
the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We look forward to continued engagement with the devolved
Administrations as we move to operationalise the Bill and the
wider new plan for immigration.
Clause 44: Illegal entry and similar offences
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 44, page 41, line 37, leave out “, (E1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
(Lab)
I apologise—the House will have to put up with me rather than my
noble friend . I note what the Minister said
about reserved matters and the approach and feelings of the
devolved Administrations. One only hopes that these matters can
be resolved in a satisfactory way acceptable to all parties.
I will speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend . All the amendments in this
group are tidying-up amendments, and most are consequential on
changes this House saw fit to make to the Bill on Report. We on
these Benches are content with all the amendments proposed
today.
Amendments 1 to 6 in the name of my noble friend make minor, technical changes
to what is now Clause 44 of the Bill. On Report this was Clause
39, and your Lordships’ House voted to remove a subsection that
provided for a new offence of arrival into the UK. These
amendments are consequential on that change.
Amendment 8, also in the name of my noble friend , is consequential on the
decision of this House to remove Clause 58 from the Bill on
Report. Clause 58 would have provided for the credibility of
trafficking victims to be damaged by late compliance with an
appropriate trafficking notice. This tidying-up amendment removes
a now-defunct reference to Clause 58, which is no longer part of
the Bill.
Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend , removes a subsection from
Clause 70 on child victims of modern slavery. This clause was
added to the Bill on Report as an amendment led by my noble
friend . The subsection being removed
disapplied what was then Clause 64 to child victims. However,
Clause 64 was then removed and replaced by a subsequent
amendment. Amendment 10 removes the reference to Clause 64, which
no longer exists in its original form.
I have also been asked to introduce Amendment 9 as the noble
Lord, , is unable to be
here; he sends his sincere apologies to the House. As a result of
the number of votes on Part 5 of the Bill, the noble Lord has
tabled this amendment to ensure that there is consistency across
the Bill. Like other amendments, Amendment 9 is a tidying-up
amendment and does not introduce new issues of principle. It
simply removes the previous definition of “public order”, which
is no longer used due to changes made to Clause 67 agreed by your
Lordships on Report. The noble Lord, , has asked me to put
on record his thanks to all those who last week supported his
amendment to give support and leave to remain to confirmed
victims of modern slavery. He also made the point, with which I
and others strongly agree, that we regret Part 5 being included
in the Bill at all, but the Bill still leaves this House with
significant improvements, which we hope the other place will
support.
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for
her amendments, which are consequential on amendments that these
Benches supported on Report. I also welcome Amendment 11 from the
Minister, which reflects the decision of this House to remove
Clause 9 from the Bill. I beg to move.
3.45pm
(CB)
My Lords, I can be fairly brief. I support the amendments put
forward to your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, . In particular, I refer to
Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I think
we would all want to extend to him a speedy return to his place
and thank him for all the work he does on behalf of victims of
modern-day slavery. I mention my own interest as a trustee of a
charity, the Arise Foundation, that deals with modern slavery and
human trafficking.
It has been a pleasure to have co-signed amendments to Part 5 of
the Bill in the noble Lord’s name but, like the noble Lord,
, I would have preferred that
Part 5 was not here at all. I hope that the Minister, when she
comes to reply, will be able to give us some indication about the
cart-before-the-horse point that was made frequently during
discussions on Part 5—in other words, when the new legislation on
modern slavery will be laid before your Lordships’ House. I
realise that she cannot give us an exact date, but is there some
rough estimation of when we might expect to see that? After all,
all these issues will be back on the table and open to amendment
at that time.
I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in commending the
noble Lord’s perseverance and persistence in the cause of
improving the support and outcomes for victims of modern slavery
over many years. I support his tidying up of Amendment 9 and
trust that noble Lords will do the same. We have had the
opportunity to improve the Bill for victims of modern slavery,
and I am proud of what the House has done in undertaking that.
There are still areas of concern, and the Government will know
that the outcomes of the Bill will be monitored closely by those
who work with victims of human trafficking.
In concluding, I ask the Minister whether the Government will
publish the statutory guidance cited in Part 5, in Clause 64,
before ping-pong is completed. If not, will it be published
during the current Session of Parliament?
(LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendments, but I ask
the Minister to go back to the—to me quite worrying—announcement
she made at the beginning of this debate, regarding the
legislative consent Motions or otherwise. The fact that the
Scottish and Welsh Governments do not support the Bill—I assume
that is the political and, if you like, philosophical reality
behind their stance—seems to raise not just political but
practical and procedural issues and matters of enforcement.
I will refer to one issue in the Bill: the arrival or entry into
the UK. If asylum seekers arrive at the coasts of Scotland or
Wales rather than England, what is to happen? I understand that
the Minister’s tone had to be quite neutral and not alarmist, but
there are very serious issues related to this. I think the House
would be grateful if the Minister were able to flesh out the
position a little more.
(CB)
We have greatly improved Part 2 of the Bill, because it no longer
flies in the face of the 1951 refugee convention as understood by
our courts, all the other parties to the convention and UNHCR,
the institution given the responsibility of overseeing the
implementation of the convention. I really hope the Minister will
ensure that her colleagues in the other place understand that
many in this House feel very strongly about this and would be
unlikely to change our view if we were again asked to consider
the introduction, contrary to the convention, of a first safe
country rule.
There is never a good time for a unilateral reinterpretation of
international obligations, but there could not be a worse time
than when there are 2.7 million refugees in continental Europe
and the Russians are trampling on the 1949 Geneva conventions. We
really need to hang on to our reputation for believing in a
rules-based system and the rule of law.
The Lord
My Lords, I support all the amendments because they all seem to
make complete sense in terms of tidying up, including those in
the Government’s name. I too was disturbed by the announcement
about the devolved legislatures—it expresses the deep unease
about the Bill out in the country as a whole. I ask the Minister
to take away from this House a real concern that this is not the
right time to press ahead and that Ukraine has raised questions
about the Bill and whether some kind of pause ought to be
considered.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for outlining his points. I
will start with the government amendments, which are two
tidying-up amendments for consideration by your Lordships’ House.
The first is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 47, which
relates to working in United Kingdom waters. The amendment
removes a definition of the term “United Kingdom waters” from the
clause. This definition is superfluous as the term is not
actually used in the Bill. The amendment therefore helps to
clarify Clause 47, so I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
The second amendment is necessary to resolve a problem that has
arisen in connection with Schedule 2 to the Bill. This schedule
relates to deprivation of citizenship. Its inclusion in the Bill
was agreed when noble Lords voted to accept amendments on this
topic moved on Report by the noble Lord, . The problem
obviously arises because after agreeing the amendments from the
noble Lord, Lord Anderson, your Lordships’ House then voted to
remove the substantive deprivation of citizenship clause from the
Bill. In consequence, the noble Lord’s amendments were also
removed and the schedule was left as an orphan, with no clause to
establish it as part of the Bill. I have therefore given notice
of my intention to oppose the question that Schedule 2 be the
second schedule to the Bill, to ensure that the Bill is
consistent.
I also note the 11 tidying-up amendments tabled by the noble
Lord, , and my noble friends and Lady Stroud. The
Government will not oppose these amendments, but we will
doubtless return to consider both them and the substantive
clauses they amend at ping-pong. May I just say something about
my noble friend Lord McColl? I had noticed that he did not seem
very well recently, and I am sure the whole House will join me in
wishing him a speedy recovery.
Noble Lords
Hear, hear!
(Con)
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about a modern
slavery Bill, I say: as soon as parliamentary time allows. I
cannot give an exact date to the noble Lord. As for guidance
being available before ping-pong, I will certainly let him know
the intended timetable for the guidance.
On the point about the LCM for Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland, the provisions of the Bill that have Ukraine-wide
application are strictly reserved matters but I say to noble
Lords that officials will continue to engage on the specifics of
operationalisation.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Amendments 2 to 6
Moved by
2: Clause 44, page 41, line 42, leave out paragraph (e)
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
3: Clause 44, page 42, line 8, leave out “, (E1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
4: Clause 44, page 42, line 10, leave out “, (E1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
5: Clause 44, page 42, line 18, leave out “, (E1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
6: Clause 44, page 42, line 21, leave out “, (E1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at
report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have
created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry
clearance.
Amendments 2 to 6 agreed.
Clause 47: Working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and
entry
Amendment 7
Moved by
7: Clause 47, page 47, line 2, leave out “and “United Kingdom
waters” have” and insert “has”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting amendment to remove a definition of a
term not used in inserted section 11B of the Immigration Act
1971.
Amendment 7 agreed.
Clause 63: Provision of information relating to being a victim of
slavery or human trafficking
Amendment 8
Moved by
8: Clause 63, page 62, line 40, leave out from “date” to end of
line 41
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 66 at
report stage which left out a Clause.
Amendment 8 agreed.
Clause 69: Conclusive grounds: support and leave to remain for
victims of slavery or human trafficking
Amendment 9
Moved by
9: Clause 69, page 68, leave out lines 4 to 7
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying-up amendment.
Amendment 9 agreed.
Clause 70: Slavery and human trafficking: victims aged under 18
years
Amendment 10
Moved by
10: Clause 70, page 68, line 31, leave out subsection (6)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying up amendment. This subsection disapplied a
Clause of the bill (Clause 64 at Lords Report Stage) to children.
However that Clause was then removed and replaced by a subsequent
amendment. This amendment corrects this Clause for the updated
version of the bill.
Amendment 10 agreed.
Schedule 2: Deprivation of Citizenship without notice: judicial
oversight
Amendment 11
Moved by
11: Schedule 2, leave out Schedule 2
Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 2 was inserted by amendment at Report Stage, but was
introduced by what was then Clause 9, which was then removed from
the Bill. The Schedule now has nothing in the Bill to introduce
it, and the provisions in it are wholly dependent on the
amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981 that were made by
Clause 9: it does not make sense on its own.
Amendment 11 agreed.
Schedule 4: Removal of asylum seeker to safe country
Amendments 12 and 13
Moved by
12: Schedule 4, page 93, line 23, leave out paragraphs 1 and
2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 to the
Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for
asylum pending). It is consequential to Amendment 35 at Report
Stage which was agreed on division.
13: Schedule 4, page 94, line 29, leave out paragraph 4
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to leave out
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4. It is consequential to
Amendment 35 at Report Stage which was agreed on division.
Amendments 12 and 13 agreed.
3.56pm
Motion
Moved by
That the Bill do now pass.
(Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will just detain the House a little longer
to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’
House. It has been very wide-ranging. It has had five thorough
days in Committee and three days on Report. During this time, in
response to the terrible situation in Ukraine, we have added
important measures to the Bill which introduce new visa penalty
provisions for countries posing a risk to international peace and
security. I was very pleased to see support for these measures
across the House.
I was not so pleased, though, by the removal of some important
measures, the aim of which was to find a long-term solution to
long-term problems in our asylum and illegal migration systems
which successive Governments have faced over decades. Those
amendments will now be considered in the other place and no doubt
we will debate them soon.
Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to
recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in
steering the Bill through the House. In particular, I thank my
noble and learned friend of Dirleton, my noble friend
of Tredegar and my
commendable noble friend for sharing the load
from the Front Bench.
I also express my thanks to all noble Lords who stayed up very
late on a number of occasions and thank Members on the Front
Bench opposite for their engagement on the Bill, accepting that
there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I thank in
particular—because I cannot thank everyone—the noble Lords,
, , and , and the noble
Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I also extend my thanks to officials at the Home Office and the
Ministry of Justice, as well as lawyers and analysts, not only in
those two departments but across government. On my behalf and my
ministerial colleagues’, I extend our thanks and appreciation to
all of them for their professionalism over the past months. I
also thank the teams in our respective private offices.
There should be no doubt about the merits of the Bill’s ultimate
objectives, namely to increase the fairness and efficacy of our
system, to deter illegal entry into the UK and to remove more
easily from the UK those with no right to be here. That is what
the British people voted for, it is what the British people
expect and it is what the Government are trying and determined to
deliver. In view of the crises now confronting our world, it is
surely now more important than ever that the Bill moves swiftly
to become law. On that note, I beg to move that the Bill do now
pass.
(Lab)
I will not detain the House for long but I think that I ought to
say a few words; first, to thank the Minister, in particular, for
the number of meetings that I know she has held—I suspect that
she has lost count—and her willingness to respond in writing and
in some detail on issues that have been raised, which is
certainly appreciated. I also thank the noble Lords, of Tredegar and . I will not comment
too much about people who stayed late since I probably fell
rather short in that regard myself. Some of us made sure we left
in time to get last trains, but not everybody did.
4.00pm
I take this opportunity to thank my Front-Bench colleagues, in
particular my noble friends and . I cannot
possibly mention everybody involved but I want to thank the large
number of contributors from the Back Benches, not least on my own
side, including my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and
Lord Dubs—they are by no means the only ones—as well as those
from the Government Back Benches, the Lords spiritual, the Cross
Benches and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. I hope that noble
Lords will forgive me for not going through and naming everybody;
I would be here all night if I did. With apologies, of course, I
must also thank the Greens; I am on the verge of getting into
real trouble.
I thank members of the Government’s Bill team as well. I know
that they have to work particularly hard and I am sure they must
get frustrated at times with some of the contributions that are
made, not least by myself, but they always deal with us in a
good-natured way; we appreciate that very much indeed. I also
thank the staff in our own office here in the Lords, not least
Grace Wright, who covers Home Office matters and without whose
support and backing on this Bill, frankly, I would have been in
real difficulty. I appreciated that very much; I am sure that
that applies to my noble friends and too.
As the Minister said, a number of amendments have been passed.
They have come not just from the Opposition Front Bench—indeed, a
minority may have been led by us—but from all parts of the House.
I think that sums up the frustration—that is probably
understating it—that many people feel about some of the content
of the Bill. I can only say that I hope that the Government, and
the other place, will give full and careful consideration to the
changes and amendments that have been made to this
still-controversial Bill by your Lordships’ House.
As the Minister has mentioned, we spent five days in Committee
and three on Report. I appreciate that the Minister, on behalf of
the Government, will not be excited by the outcomes of all the
votes but, bearing in mind that those amendments did come, and in
many cases had support, from all parts of this House, the least
we can expect from the Government and the other place is that
they give them full and careful consideration.
(LD)
My Lords, following the invasion of Ukraine, it has been
interesting to note how the arguments of some noble Lords have
acquired a hollow ring. We were implored to listen to public
opinion to restrict immigration, but this Bill is not about
restricting the over 90% of immigration to the UK that is nothing
to do with refugees. This Bill is targeted at asylum seekers like
those fleeing Ukraine, who, in recent years, accounted for about
4% of immigration to the UK, and it is aimed at victims of modern
slavery: people being trafficked and exploited by ruthless people
smugglers as well as many being exploited in this country who
were born in the UK.
Public opinion shows that British people welcome refugees; this
Bill shuns them. It is consistent with the Government making
another grave mistake in using the new-found freedom from the
European Union to place barriers in the way of Ukrainian refugees
instead of waiving visas as the rest of the EU has done. To
paraphrase the Irish Prime Minister yesterday, we can deal with
any security issues once they are here—the priority is
humanity.
I thank my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, without
whose support I would not have made it through this ordeal, as
well as the Labour Front Bench and Back Benches, our respective
support staff, and Grace Wright, and all
those organisations and individuals who have supported us in
opposing this truly dreadful Bill, including the noble
Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor
Castle.
I thank the tripod of Ministers—the noble Lords, of Tredegar and , and the noble and
learned Lord, of Dirleton —for supporting
the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who has striven
uncomplainingly through unreasonably long sittings due to the
mismanagement of the timetabling and the deliberately
unco-operative attitude of the Government. This House should not
have been debating issues of this gravity at 3 o’clock in the
morning or voting on them after midnight.
The elected House passed this Bill and, therefore, sadly, so must
we. Hopefully, we have taken some of the sting out of it. In the
light of Ukraine, simply because it graphically illustrates the
barbaric nature of this Bill, we now ask the other place to think
again and to leave in place the improvements that we have made.
We on these Benches earnestly hope that it will.
(CB)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady
Williams of Trafford. She has heard a lot of complaints about the
things that Members of your Lordships’ House disagree with, and I
associate myself with some of those complaints, but this Bill has
been something of an endurance test. At a quarter to one in the
morning last week, as we debated citizenship fees, I thought that
maybe this was not the way to conduct parliamentary business.
However, I was particularly pleased that, during the course of
our proceedings, the noble Baroness was specifically recognised
and raised to the Privy Council; it was a just reward for the way
in which she serves your Lordships’ House.
I notice that the noble Lord, of Barnes, has been listening
in the Chamber this afternoon. He spoke in our debate last week
about the position of young Hong Kongers. Along with the noble
Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble Baroness was incredibly helpful in
incorporating into this Bill something that will really benefit
young people in Hong Kong who, born after 1997, were not part of
the BNO scheme that their parents had been part of. I have
already seen emails from people in Hong Kong expressing their
thanks to your Lordships’ House.
Finally, I extend my thanks to Members from all sides who
supported my amendment on providing safe and secure routes out of
genocide in various parts of the world. I hope that that will not
be lost in the maelstrom as we now proceed to ping-pong but will
be given serious thought, and that maybe further discussion can
take place as this Bill now proceeds to another place.
(Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, , in his comments
about my noble friend the Minister, on her effective stewardship
of this Bill and the recognition that she has recently received
in becoming a member of the Privy Council.
I would like to add a slightly different perspective from that of
some noble Lords who have spoken in this stage of the
legislation. I support this Bill. I have not contributed to a
great extent during its passage, but noble Lords may have noticed
that I have spent a lot of time listening to the debates during
its period in your Lordships’ House. Although I support the Bill,
I do not do so blindly. I am a great believer in the
parliamentary process, and I have always taken the view that the
process of scrutiny always improves legislation. The Bill leaves
this House to return to the other place stronger than when it
arrived. I commend many noble lords who have worked to achieve
that, including my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues
on the Front Bench.
However, I will make a couple of other observations. One of the
things that I have found a bit concerning in listening to some of
the debates during this Bill’s period with us is the way in which
some noble Lords in bringing forward their amendments, or those
who have supported their amendments, have sought to suggest that
people who are kind are people who will support them—in a way,
trying to define those who oppose the Bill as the only people who
speak for those who are kind and generous when it comes to those
who come to our country in their time of need. As the Minister
said earlier, it is important for us to recognise that the need
and desire for stronger immigration controls, and the generosity
of spirit of the British people to refugees and to asylum
seekers, are not mutually exclusive. Actually, a lot of people
feel strongly that it is because of stronger controls that people
feel able to be that much more generous in the way they feel they
want to be to those in need.
So, whatever happens when the other place considers the
amendments that have been made in your Lordships’ House and sends
the Bill back to us, I hope that when we get to that stage in the
passage of this legislation we will all refrain from trying to
monopolise or reserve for ourselves a definition of kindness that
is not embracing of those who also want to see stronger
immigration controls.
(GP)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly tough Bill, not only
because of the stamina necessary to take us through the very long
hours—and sometimes the very long speeches—but because it has
sometimes been emotionally draining. It was almost worse than the
policing Bill, which I really thought was the worst Bill. On the
other hand, we have had some great speeches.
I thank everyone who has thanked us. We have put quite a lot of
energy into this, and at the same time we are well aware that it
is the whole House that has made a real difference.
4.12pm
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
