"It isn't about changing the refugee convention. It is about amending it" That is akin to someone being charged with breaking and entering claiming they were just "interpreting the law". The UK's #BordersBill clearly and unambiguously violates international law.
"interpreting" not "amending"
For many people changing the wording from "reasonable likelihood" to "balance of probability" may sound like semantics, but in reality makes it far more difficult for those fleeing persecution to be granted asylum by the nature of the higher burden of proof which will be required
Among other things, this is liable to see people who are fleeing war and persecution being returned to countries where they are at risk due to the unreasonable nature of the test being imposed on people who have had to flee their homes.
Just as a quick reminder, despite Lord Wolfson's comments, the government as ignored its own Equality and Impact Statement in proceeding with parts of the #BorderBill, as well as its own public consultation and its own domestic law.
I would also suggest that creating a two tier system, with multiple additional checks, and different standards of proof required, is not the way to "simplify" the asylum system. Inevitably it makes it more complex and more susceptible to errors which will see people denied safety
Lord Wolfson once again appears to misunderstand the principle of international law, by saying any signatory state can interpret the treaties which they have ratified in any way they like. The logical extension of that thought process is the collapse of the international order.
Lord Hodgson now claiming that people are coming to the UK as a form of "forum", or asylum, shopping. This has been repeatedly proven misleading. Countries such as France et all have "more generous" asylum systems.
There is no such thing as a "first safe country" principle in international law, however it is not unreasonable to think that people seeking a country of safety would choose one where they speak the language over one where they do not.
Point of note, due to "carrier liability fines" asylum seekers are unable to reach the UK via air, as the carriers have the ability to remove them from flights, even if they have all the correct documentation, if they believe that they will seek asylum upon arrival.
Indeed a carrier can not only be fined, but also face criminal charges, if they do not remove someone who subsequently seeks asylum. So the argument that asylum seekers can come via planes, and therefore not make small boat crossings, is plainly false,
While the House is adjourned, let's just cover a couple of basic points. The UK is an island, shocking I know. Majority of asylum seekers can't fly because of the aforementioned "carrier liability fines* and "resettlement routes are highly limited.
This means that the "direct" requirement for those seeking asylum in the UK, as well as ignoring guidance on this, would effectively mean that the UK takes a tiny handful to no asylum seekers.
Not only is that an obvious abdication of responsibility, but it is unlikely to make other countries more inclined to see the UK as a "moral arbiter" or global force. In fact it is more likely to see it be treated as a pariah by many in the international community.
Attempting to outsource asylum seekers via an externalisation process known as "offshoring", which particularly in the way the #BordersBill proposes would see countries where asylum seekers are offshored forced to process claims in line with their own asylum legislation...
is further going to undermine the UK's reputation. More than this though, it would see those fleeing persecution denied safety in the UK as potentially placed at increased risk, particularly of trafficking.
Now back and discussing family reunification. This is something which this government has already cut, leaving unaccompanied minors with family in the UK unable to seek asylum here without making dangerous crossings.
Nothing in the bill makes it clear that this will change, and indeed is liable, through changes in such things as age assessments, to make it more difficult for separated child asylum seekers to be able to find safety with family members living in the UK.
At no point can someone who is seeking asylum be classed as "illegal". It is not illegal to seek asylum. Only the other week the courts found for example that Priti Patel's use of "illegal migrants" for those crossing the channel was misleading, due to 98% seeking asylum.
As stated by Baroness Jones "if the government saw refugees as human beings" they would not be leaving so much in this bill to be left so hazy and open ended. There is a lot in here which relies on trusting the government later on, which based on its track record is unfeasible.
Excellent points by Lord Kerr and Baroness Meacher that the only realistic way to reduce channel crossings is to increase safe routes, note that safe routes and resettlement routes are not synonymous though. Resettlement routes, by there nature, will always remain limited.
Okay, I am calling it for the night. There's only so much debate even I can take. May try and catch up on it tomorrow and share some thoughts, aren't you all so lucky.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
