Tag: Illegal Migration Bill 2023

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham requests clarification on use of digital methods such as video conferencing in immigration procedures

During a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill on 12th June 2023, the Bishop of Durham raised a point of clarification to Lord Murray of Blidworth (the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Migration & Borders), on the use of remote methods such as video-conferencing to conduct immigration procedures, asking whether such methods were as effective as in person interviewing and interventions:

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): Amendment 90, spoken to by my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl, relates to the presumption that it is not necessary for a person to remain in the UK to co-operate with an investigation. It is one of the enduring legacies of the Covid pandemic that much more can now be done remotely. We all see this in the changes to the way we work. Even now, some Members of your Lordships’ House take part in debates by videolink. It is simply no longer the case that a victim of crime needs to be in face-to-face contact with police or others to assist with an investigation. There is no reason why, in the majority of cases, such co-operation cannot continue by email, messaging and videoconferencing. The presumption in Clause 21(5) is therefore perfectly proper.

(…)

The Lord Bishop of Durham: Sorry—it has taken me a little while to contemplate but is the Minister effectively saying that the use of video and email and so on is as good as in-person interviewing and in-person interventions? I really think that needs to be rethought.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham requests clarification on use of digital methods such as video conferencing in immigration procedures”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham speaks on importance of safeguarding victims of modern slavery and human trafficking

On 12th June 2023, during the fourth day of committee debates on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Durham spoke in support of proposals by Baroness Hamwee to remove clauses 21, 25, 28 & 28 from the bill, in order to safeguard victims of modern slavery and human trafficking who would otherwise be subject to removal under the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I declare my interests with RAMP and Reset and, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did at the outset of the debate, I hope that will stand for the other times I speak later on different groups.

I support all the amendments, but I am speaking in support of the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clauses 21, 25, 26 and 28 be completely removed. This is supported by my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who we heard earlier is unfortunately unable to be here today. Bishops across England have had the privilege of working very closely with the large sector of faith-based charities and projects that work with victims of slavery. We have heard a lot about the Salvation Army, but I want to highlight the Clewer Initiative, which is our own project raising awareness and helping support victims. The feedback that has been coming from the Salvation Army, from Clewer and from other groups in relation to the modern slavery provisions of the Bill ranges from trepidation to outright horror.

Rather euphemistically, the Explanatory Notes refer to what is proposed in this and the following clauses as “a significant step”. I suggest that the complete disapplication of all support, replaced with detention and removal, is drastic in the extreme. I cannot see how such a step could be justifiable, but for it even to be defensible would require the most robust and extensive level of proof of its necessity. I do not think that has been shown.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham speaks on importance of safeguarding victims of modern slavery and human trafficking”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports removal exemptions for victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking

On 12th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the fourth day of the committee stage. The Bishop of Southwark spoke in the debate, support of amendment 88, tabled by Lord Coaker and supported by the Bishop of Gloucester, which would aim to prevent victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking from being removed under the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is supported by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, who regrets that she is unable to be here today. There is much similar ground in this amendment to others, but this amendment focuses specifically on victims of sexual exploitation.

The Bill directs that victims of modern slavery, including victims of sexual exploitation, shall be subject to detention and removal to their own country or to a third country. As we have heard, the principal exception to this is if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual is co-operating with criminal proceedings and that their presence in the United Kingdom is necessary for this to continue. We know that the Government have committed to victims of sexual violence and exploitation in this country. The UK ratified the 2011 Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence only last summer and there has been much work done over the past few years to increase awareness and tackle perpetrators. To deny those who have arrived here safety and protection is a regressive move.

Research tells us that women who have been exploited often arrive confused, not always having been aware of their final destination or even that they were going to another country. They may have been exploited by their traffickers during the flight. The notion of removing them to a safe third country that contains their abusers is cruel and unnecessary. The moral basis of legislating for and the axiomatic assumption of the detention and removal of such women, as there is in Clause 21, is at best dubious. I support this amendment.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports removal exemptions for victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks to Bishop of Durham’s amendment on detention conditions for vulnerable individuals

On 7th June 2023, during a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of the Bishop of Durham’s amendment 78, which would allow exceptions to the bill’s proposed ouster of judicial review during the first 28 days of detention, for vulnerable individuals such as children, pregnant women, and those with mental health issues:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 78, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who is unable to be here at this early hour. I know that he is grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, for their support.

A statutory regime of clinical screening for people at risk of harm in detention and for healthcare professionals to be able to report concerns to the Home Office has been a cornerstone of safeguarding in immigration detention since 2001—and rightly so. This amendment looks to ensure that this process does not become inconsequential by preventing the necessary legal oversight of detention decisions. Given the technical nature of the issues relating to medical reporting in detention centres, I will focus my comments on the context of this amendment and set out a few key questions for the Minister.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks to Bishop of Durham’s amendment on detention conditions for vulnerable individuals”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments to limit the use of force and detention on pregnant women

On 7th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in committee. The Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of amendments to the bill; in the name of the Bishop of Gloucester, Baroness Lister of Burtersett, and other peers; that would place limits on the detention of pregnant women and the use of force against children and pregnant women:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has expertly outlined why these amendments are needed. My good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name in support of Amendments 68 and 70, and regrets she is not able to be here to give her support in person. I share her concern about the impact of detention on pregnant women in particular, impact which we know is considerable. Others will rightly draw attention to the impact on children, and the suggestion of the use of force against either group is unspeakable. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons advises that there

“is no safe way to use force against a pregnant woman, and to initiate it for the purpose of removal is to take an unacceptable risk”.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments to limit the use of force and detention on pregnant women”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments limiting detention of children on behalf of Bishop of Durham

On 7th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill in Committee. The Bishop of Southwark spoke, on behalf of the Bishop of Durham, in support of a group of amendments tabled by Baroness Mobarik which would place limits on the detention of children:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 which, as has been demonstrated, have strong support from all quarters of this Chamber. It was the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to these amendments but he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight.

I believe that the strength of opposition to any change in the current detention limits for both accompanied and unaccompanied children is because it is one of the most alarming and unedifying provisions in the Bill. Ministers have set out what they see as the need to detain children for immigration purposes in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently create incentives for people smugglers to target vulnerable individuals. Were this the case, then there would be a case for considering some sort of remedy. However, yet again we have been provided with no evidence that this is the case.

Building an asylum system with deterrence diffused throughout, as described by His Majesty’s Government, has led to this inappropriate proposal to restart detaining children, potentially for an unlimited period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, it was a Government led by the party currently in office who took the brave decision to end the routine detention of children. That was against significant departmental pressure to retain the practice. How have we arrived, just 10 years later, at the conclusion that the well-being and welfare of children can now be sacrificed in consequence of the need to control migration?

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments limiting detention of children on behalf of Bishop of Durham”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks in support of amendments on detention facilities

During a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Lord German and the Bishop of Durham. The amendments focused on use of facilities used to detain migrants and sought to limit places of detention in the bill to those that are presently authorised for detention:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I support Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and welcome the opportunity to discuss what rules and regulations His Majesty’s Government will adhere to when selecting a site for the purposes of detention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had intended to speak but is unable to be here for this group of amendments; I am glad to be here in his place. I am grateful to Medical Justice for sharing how existing legislation governs both the nature and operation of detention centres. As it is a detailed policy area, I will focus my time on the context for these amendments while also posing questions to the Minister.

First, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained at Second Reading, the Bill before us changes the nature and scope of detention considerably. It moves detention away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a punitive system of incarceration intended thereby to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the United Kingdom. Deterrence, as we have seen, is a key theme stressed by the Government, albeit no evidence or impact assessment has been adduced in its favour. This shift towards incarceration signals a major transition in policy, but in embarking on this shift in the purpose of detention, the Government leave us with a lack of detail on what rules and guidance will be adhered to when the Secretary of State is selecting a place of detention.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks in support of amendments on detention facilities”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments aimed at providing housing and subsistence support to those deemed inadmissible to the UK

On 7th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in committee. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Baroness Lister of Burtersett which would set out regulations for financial and accommodation support available to people deemed “inadmissible” but still resident in the UK:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I refer to the register of interests and my involvement with the RAMP project and Reset.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling Amendments 57C to 57G to provide us with the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the level of support that will be provided for those declared inadmissible but who are unable to be removed from the country. I too am highly grateful to the Refugee Council for supporting us to probe this area of policy well, especially in the absence of an impact assessment.

Before I outline questions for the Minister, it is important to note that those deemed inadmissible will include not just those whose asylum cases would likely have been found valid but individuals who would not have qualified. In the absence of any return deals, this could leave the Government in the absurd position of needing to support at public expense those who could be appropriately returned to their own country.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments aimed at providing housing and subsistence support to those deemed inadmissible to the UK”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments to ensure high standard of “safe” countries

On 5th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill on the second day of the committee stage. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Baroness Hamwee, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and Lord Alton of Liverpool that would ensure that, when removing migrants to “safe” countries, the country in question meets high definitions of safety:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: I apologise that I was unable to be present on day one of Committee and I arrived today rather later than I had planned, so was unable to speak earlier. However, I am grateful to my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for so doing.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments to ensure high standard of “safe” countries”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Coventry supports amendments covering human rights claims

On 5th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the second day of committee. On behalf of the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Coventry spoke in support of an amendment to the bill tabled by Lord Dubs which would require the Home Secretary to consider a protection claim or a human rights claim if the applicant has not been removed from the UK within six months of the claim being deemed inadmissible:

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak previously on the Bill, but I support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has added his name to this little band, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to them. I have been holding back in the hope that he would land, but his aircraft has been delayed.

Of course, it is right that every nation should have jurisdiction over its own borders and the ability to decide who may or may not have a credible claim to reside in the country, but Clause 4 ends any such due process which would consider the merits of an asylum application. By denying those who are deemed inadmissible from ever claiming asylum, as we have heard, thousands of men, women and children will simply not have their case heard, let alone assessed, regardless of how grave their protection needs might be—and regardless of the fact that there is no way to travel to the UK with prior authorisation in order to claim asylum in many cases. That point is made regularly in your Lordships’ House.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Coventry supports amendments covering human rights claims”