Ben Goldsborough

I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done. These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered. Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider. For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test. Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a “very significant and long-lasting adverse effect” on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made. Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances. Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not. Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary. The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything. A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures. The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR. Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.