Lord Murray of Blidworth:

Moved by Lord Murray of Blidworth

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A to 22Q in lieu.

22A: Clause 2, page 3, line 26, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the day on which this Act is passed”

22B: Page 4, line 21, at end insert the following new Clause— “Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the date which is for the time being specified in— (a) section 2(3) (duty to remove: date of entry or arrival in the United Kingdom); (b) section 4(7)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act); (c) section 5(12)(a) or (14)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act). (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make consequential amendments to this Act or any other enactment. (3) Provision made by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, amend this Act or any other enactment to modify the operation of a provision which would otherwise apply to a person who meets, or has ever met, the condition in section 2(3) (including to enable that provision to operate as if an amendment to section 2(3) had not been made). (4) An amendment made by virtue of subsection (1) may have the effect that a provision mentioned in that subsection specifies— (a) a particular calendar date, or (b) a date which is determined by the occurrence of a particular event (for example the coming into force of a provision of this Act, generally or for a particular purpose). (5) But such an amendment may not have the effect that the provision specifies a date which is earlier than the date specified before the amendment was made.”

22C: Clause 3, page 5, line 7, after “this Act” insert “(other than sections 15 and 16)”

22D: Clause 4, page 6, line 32, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the day on which this Act is passed”

22E: Clause 5, page 8, line 18, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the day on which this Act is passed”

22F: Clause 5, page 8, line 30, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the day on which this Act is passed”

22G: Clause 15, page 23, line 19, at end insert— “(5) For the purposes of this section and section 16, a person (“C”) is an unaccompanied child if— (a) C meets the four conditions in section 2, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023, (b) C is under the age of 18, and (c) at the time of C’s entry or arrival in the United Kingdom by virtue of which C meets the condition in section 2(3), no individual (whether or not a parent of C) who was aged 18 or over had care of C.”

22H: Clause 20, page 25, line 27, after “meaning of” insert “section 15 of”

22J: Clause 20, page 25, line 28, leave out “(see section 3(5) of that Act)”

22K: Clause 29, page 35, line 8, after “Kingdom)” insert “, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023”

22L: Clause 29, page 35, line 14, after “Kingdom)” insert “, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023”

22M: Clause 29, page 36, line 17, at end insert— “(4) Until section 2(1) comes into force in relation to a person, section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 has effect in relation to that person as if it also permitted the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter or limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom in any other circumstances, subject as follows. (5) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies leaves or is removed from the United Kingdom after having become such a person, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter the United Kingdom if the person returns to the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(3) of that Act). (6) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies is given limited leave to enter the United Kingdom under subsection (3) of that section, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(4) of that Act). (7) Any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given to a person by virtue of subsection (4) is to be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment, whether the person meets the four conditions in section 2.”

22N: Clause 30, page 36, line 26, after “Kingdom)” insert “, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023”

22P: Clause 64, page 64, line 22, after “3(5)” insert “(subject to section 15(5))”.

22Q: Clause 66, page 65, line 41, at end insert— “(za) section (Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc) (amendment of date in section 2(3) etc);”

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions F and G.

Motion B deals with the retrospective application of the duty to make arrangements for removal. We have reflected on the arguments put forward on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on Report. We have brought forward Amendments 22A and 22Q in lieu. Noble Lords will recall that the Lords amendments sought to move the operative date of the Clause 2 duty from 7 March this year to the date of that clause’s commencement. We believe that such a change carries a significant risk of there being a surge in channel crossings—a fire sale, if you will—as we approach the commencement date. To guard against this, the amendments in lieu instead provide for the duty to remove to apply to a person who enters the United Kingdom unlawfully from the date of this Bill’s Royal Assent.

We will keep this under review ahead of the Bill’s implementation, as we have included a reserve power to change the new operative date by regulations. This could, for example, enable us to focus the initial implementation of the Bill on those who arrived here illegally via small boats rather than by other means. I should stress that the 7 March date will continue to apply for the purpose of the power conferred on the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purpose of the ban on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. I trust that this compromise approach will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Motion F relates to Lords Amendment 9, moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord German. This relates to the issue of the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims within the UK system. It remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be admissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country for their asylum claims to be processed is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31—a point that I mentioned a moment ago. This amendment would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out in an attempt to reach a six-month cut-off date. This amendment was rejected by the Commons by a strong majority of 76. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to agree to Motion F.

Finally, Motion G relates to Lords Amendment 23, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The United Kingdom is a stout defender of LGBT communities across the globe. Our commitment to this cause remains unwavering. So, although I understand and sympathise with the noble and learned Lord’s desire to protect LGBT people who would face persecution were they to be sent to one of the countries listed in the amendment, I remain strongly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already delivers the protections that he seeks.

We are committed to the principle of non-refoulement, as a Jamaican national who makes a protection claim will not be returned to Jamaica. Were they to be fearful of being at real risk of suffering serious and irreversible harm, and were they to be removed to a specified third country, they would be able to make a serious harm suspensive claim. As I have previously indicated, in considering such a claim, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran) would be applied such that if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them from living in the specified third country without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim.

I hope the noble and learned Lord has been able to reflect on my assurances and on the outcome of the vote yesterday in the other place, and that he now feels able to support Motion G. I beg to move.