Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Committee (5th Day)

Amendment 136

136: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause— “Amendment to section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002For section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substitute—“(5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh, or(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to remain in the UK without C.”” Member's explanatory statement This new Clause seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met. These include that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child (that is, a British child or a child who has resided in the UK for more than 7 years) or a qualifying partner (that is, a British citizen, or someone settled in the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971).

Noble Lords will note, being terribly observant, that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Around about now, I hope, she is emerging from theatre, having had an operation on her foot. She will not be in the House for a few weeks, so I am afraid that I am picking up amendments from my noble friend. I apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading, but the timing of the operation was uncertain, so this is where we have got to.

I am moving Amendment 136 and will speak to Amendment 187, both in the name of my noble friend. They propose two new clauses which would address the rights of children. Most of us will understand—and I hope and believe that most of us accept—that we in the UK regard the rights of children as enormously important and that, when making decisions, we have always to keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or children resident in Britain.

To set out a couple of points of context for this, I note that, as many will be aware, Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the best interests of the child being at the centre of decisions. Article 5 talks about the importance of parental guidance for children and children’s rights, and Article 9 says that separation from parents should be avoided wherever possible.

Let us think about what it means for the child if a parent is deported. I refer to some testimony from an organisation called Bail for Immigration Detainees which talks about what it is like when a child sees their parent facing deportation. Obviously, it is devastating when families are torn apart and children face never seeing their parent in the flesh again. If a parent is deported to, say, Jamaica or India, it will be extremely expensive, perhaps impossibly so, for the child ever to be in their arms again. There are also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, with employment fitting around it—one parent takes the children to school while the other is working. All those arrangements fall apart very suddenly, and the child is the one who suffers.

My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.

In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.

I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.

My Lords, I too wish a swift and full recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Her colleague has ably set out the thinking behind this amendment. I suspect I am more sympathetic to it than some members of the Committee, but I suggest the following additional observation on a point that it demonstrates, even to those who feel very anti anyone who has committed a crime ever being able to stay in the United Kingdom.

The amendment demonstrates that Article 8 of the convention is broadly drawn, so there is room for considerable debate about where the line should be drawn on what is a necessary and proportionate interference—for example, to prevent crime or for the purposes of immigration control. A great deal of latitude has always been allowed to signatory states as to where, in the first instance, democratic politics and the elected Government of the day think that discretion should be framed. For many years, Governments of both persuasions have attempted to structure that discretion—just as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is doing in one direction in this amendment—by a combination of primary legislation, Immigration Rules and policy. So, anybody who says that one needs to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights because of Article 8 is either misguided or not misguided at all and is doing this for various political reasons.

I have been a lawyer for only 31 years, but my understanding is that there have been only four removal cases since 1980 in which the UK Government have been found in violation of Article 8. So, if people are upset about the way domestic courts are drawing the line in particular cases, I suggest that that is something for domestic legislation—primary or secondary legislation, rules, guidance and so on. It is in no way a justification for some of the toxic debates about international human rights that we have heard in recent days, weeks, months and years.

I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We shall miss, for a temporary period, her distinctive contribution to this House.

I am puzzled by this amendment, essentially for the reasons my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentions. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is part of our law. There are suggestions that proposals may be brought forward in relation to its application, but it remains part of our law. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in the Bill that purports to remove Article 8.

Article 8 requires adjudicators, tribunals and courts to have regard to family law issues and the interests of children and parents—families—and that seems entirely appropriate. There is a balance to be struck in these cases. We are talking about the deportation of criminals. Sadly, there are people here on a temporary basis who commit serious crimes and who need to be removed. It is right and proper that the interests of families are taken into account, but that already happens. I do not see the need for the amendments.

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there are particular statutory provisions on additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals, and it is those that I understand the noble Baroness is seeking to amplify.

My Lords, I too offer best wishes, from these Benches, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for a speedy recovery.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments but, like several other speakers before me, it is our party’s position that the legislation already strikes a careful and considered balance between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the need to protect the rights of their partners and children under Article 8. Section 117C of the 2002 Act is clear: in the case of those sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, deportation is the default position unless one of two well-defined exceptions apply. Exception 2, to which Amendment 136 relates, already provides that where there is a genuine and subsisting relationship with the qualifying partner or qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on that partner or child would be “unduly harsh”, deportation should not proceed. So the amendment before us appears to restate protections that are already embedded in the legislation, and the courts already have the discretion—indeed, a duty—to interpret and apply that exception.

We have to be mindful of clarity in the law and not introduce duplicating or potentially confusing provisions. In short, with the greatest respect, the amendments would not meaningfully add to the safeguards already in place, and for that reason we cannot support them.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for moving the amendment. I hope she will pass on the best wishes of His Majesty’s Government and myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding her absence from this House. We look forward to undoubtedly seeing her back for day 6 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on a date to be determined in October.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 187 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of the family in exercising immigration functions. It is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I share the view expressed by both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the amendment is unnecessary.

The protections the amendment seeks to apply are already firmly embedded in law and practice through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010, and the plans for family reform we announced in our immigration White Paper in May, which will be before both Houses in relatively short order.

There is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child in the UK. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 ensures that consideration of the child’s best interests is a primary—but not the only—consideration when carrying out relevant functions. The UK’s immigration system rightly supports family migration for British citizens and those settled here, but where individuals wish to establish family life in the UK it is appropriate that they do so on the basis of financial self-sufficiency and the ability to integrate into society.

The system already provides for dependent children through cross-cutting rules in Appendix Children and includes provisions for parents to join or remain with their children in defined circumstances. As noble Lords have mentioned, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a robust framework for assessing the right to private and family life. The Immigration Rules reflect the qualified nature of Article 8, setting requirements which properly balance the individual right to respect for private or family life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK by controlling immigration, protecting the public from foreign criminals and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti have spoken in support of that, but I think that Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has already set out Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has mentioned, it requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases. This means that the public interest in family migrants being financially independent and being able to speak English, as required by the Immigration Rules, is set out in primary legislation.

Each application for permission under the family routes is considered on its merits and on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. Where an applicant does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will go on to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to respect private and family life. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family.