UK Borders Bill

I added my name to Amendment No. 33, already spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. That does not mean to say that I do not support the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment No. 32. However, I shall raise one or two minor points about it. First, I wonder whether it goes sufficiently wide, particularly in the direction of the dependant children of families already in this country. Secondly, in subsection (1)(d) it refers to those who remain in the UK following the making of a claim. Would that also cover those whose cases fail but who cannot be returned to their country of origin, for one reason or another? At Second Reading I mentioned the significant numbers of asylum applicants who failed to present their cases to the high standard required for refugee status. Many of those thus refused have not been deported, nor have they been able to return voluntarily. Many genuinely need humanitarian protection because they come from countries in turmoil such as Iraq, Somalia or Darfur, or countries suffering repression such as Iran, Burma or China. Others are at risk because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, I have to ask why the old category of exceptional leave to remain has been so sparingly used in recent years? Will the Government enable those who have been refused refugee status to appeal for exceptional leave to remain when they have real protection needs? Exceptional leave, if granted, would enable them to work—and that is a very important point—because it would reduce the demand for welfare benefits, generate tax revenues and, above all, prevent destitution. It would have the further merit of meeting at least part of the current demand for temporary migrant workers. Ministers frequently speak of the importance of building social cohesion and reducing the size of the black and grey economies. Those are some reasons why I support Amendment No. 33 and the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I suggest that what I have asked for is fully compatible with other direct attempts to prevent destitution. I suggest that the Government should grasp both approaches since they both seek to achieve policy aims that various Ministers have stated over and over again.