Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Indeed, the right reverend Prelate did, and I confirm that I will happily correspond with him and copy in the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I moved Amendment 139A. The right reverend Prelate and I have often had our names paired on amendments on these issues. The story from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about Home Office officials sitting in court to see what they can pick up was truly shocking, whatever other conclusions one might draw about it.

I am unclear why it is necessary to apply the restrictions about sharing data, automatically or otherwise, when the subject is already detained, but I come back to my principal point—sadly, it is not the first time we have made it from these Benches—that we thought that the effective immigration control exemption in the Data Protection Act, and so much now comes within that, was far too wide and had dangers inherent in it. The examples given by the right reverend Prelate in the field of domestic abuse bear this out.

We have heard a lot about the Government wanting co-operation from victims with regard to the investigation and prosecution of traffickers and smugglers. It does not seem to me that not agreeing to a firewall is the best way to go about getting that co-operation.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

Is the noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I was just about to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 139A withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

However, as the Bill stands, a victim of trafficking can be returned as soon as possible and without waiting for the results of the identification process. Furthermore, during the process, the individual should be provided with all the relevant assistance indicated in Article 12 of ECAT, which sets out six forms of assistance to which the individual is entitled. How far have His Majesty’s Government taken into account Articles 10 and 12 of ECAT? I think we would all like to know, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 85D in this group and have added my name to Amendment 85C from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have also tabled opposition to two clauses standing part, because we on these Benches oppose the whole approach to modern slavery and trafficking in the Bill. We oppose every clause in the Bill and have tabled that opposition because it is not a matter of tweaking, although the amendments draw attention to some particularly egregious provisions.

Clause 25 is about suspension and renewal, but its very existence, sunsetting after two years, indicates, as the JCHR noted, that the Home Office recognises the severity of the provisions. They may be short term, but they will not feel that way to victims and survivors. Can I just say how much I admire the work that the JCHR has done on the Bill? It has produced a splendid report, which I am afraid I flicked through to find the bits relevant to today—but then I am human, and the whole of it will get read.

What evidence is there of abuse of the system? Assertion is not evidence. What evidence is there that victims of modern slavery are likely to be a danger to the public or a threat to public order? Is it really appropriate for a Minister, having sunsetted a provision, to revive it by regulations? A lot of constitutional points arise in the Bill. Mind you, I would rather see it sunsetted before the sun even rises.

When the Bill was starting its passage through Parliament, I was in a taxi and the driver inevitably wanted to tell me what Parliament should be doing. On the subject of small boats, he said he was concerned that his children should be safe from all the terrorists arriving in small boats. He was hearing the message that the Government wanted him to hear. Actually, we had quite a reasonable conversation about asylum seekers and he was very receptive to a number of the things I said, but it brought home to me just how dangerous the Government’s messaging is: it is dangerous to individuals, dangerous for cohesion and integration, dangerous in the attitudes it fosters and much else.

As the JCHR said, how can the modern slavery clauses be applied compatibly with Article 4 of the convention, which places on the state positive obligations that are absolute and cannot be derogated from? A similar point arises with ECAT. The JCHR recommends that Clause 21 be removed, and although I took a little comfort from the fact that our instincts were backed up, that does not achieve it, of course. As the committee said, there should at least be no removal of asylum seekers until a “conclusive grounds” decision has been made. As Amendment 85D indicates, one of our concerns is the recovery period, as it always has been. For many victims, 30 days is nowhere near enough for them to recover. There being no period for recovery at all is far worse.

Amendment 90 refers to co-operation with investigations and proceedings. The point that occurred me a day or two ago follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been saying. I do not think the point has been made that the absence of the victim may jeopardise proceedings in a number of ways, including because the victim is not available for cross examination, either in person—that is always best—or by video link if that is what the Home Office envisages. I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister: what is envisaged? Are the Government confident that it will always be possible to give evidence by video link, given the countries to which asylum seekers may be removed? Is this to be a provision in removals agreements? It seems to me that not a lot more than lip service is being paid to the importance of tackling smuggling and trafficking gangs, improving the conviction rate and securing remedy for victims. Nothing in the Bill will increase the efficiency of all those things.

Finally, I want to say a word on Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which addresses the absence of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. I hope we will not hear from the government Front Bench that a new commissioner will be appointed “in due course”. The lack of an appointment for over a year now makes the Government’s lack of real concern about modern slavery very evident.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is supported by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, who regrets that she is unable to be here today. There is much similar ground in this amendment to others, but this amendment focuses specifically on victims of sexual exploitation.

The Bill directs that victims of modern slavery, including victims of sexual exploitation, shall be subject to detention and removal to their own country or to a third country. As we have heard, the principal exception to this is if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual is co-operating with criminal proceedings and that their presence in the United Kingdom is necessary for this to continue. We know that the Government have committed to victims of sexual violence and exploitation in this country. The UK ratified the 2011 Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence only last summer and there has been much work done over the past few years to increase awareness and tackle perpetrators. To deny those who have arrived here safety and protection is a regressive move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I rise to support the removal of Clauses 22 to 24 and 27, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, many of the arguments are similar to those related to Clause 21, so we will not repeat them.

Clauses 22 to 24 carry through the logic of Clause 21 and remove protections and support from those who, crucially, have already been identified and assessed as having reasonable grounds to be considered a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. These victims are not self-identified or -assessed. They have to be referred by a first responder agency, such as the police, and assessed by the competent authority.

The insidious nature of applying these provisions retrospectively is that there are people now in safe houses who are receiving specialist support to rebuild their lives or to build a legal case against their abuser that might be used by law enforcement. To have those protections and support removed from them before a conclusive grounds decision can be reached on their case seems cruel. Someone who has potentially just escaped an abusive situation and has been assessed by a first responder and the Home Office as having a reasonable case and who is for the first time receiving support from a specialist agency could be told out of the blue that support is withdrawn and they are subject to detention and removal. To deter one group of people, we will wash our hands of a much larger group who did not arrive by boat or even necessarily of their own volition.

The long and short of these clauses is that to weed out an unknown and unproven level of abuse, and without any evidence that it will deter Channel crossings, we will be simply abandoning victims. We will be doing so in a thoroughly dramatic and cruel way by withdrawing support that has been offered. I cannot see this is justifiable, still less desirable, and I ask the Minister to consider the clauses in their entirety.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to repeat the points that I made on the first group because they apply in a very similar way to the amendments in this group, which in our case amounts to opposition to the clauses standing part of the Bill.

In the first group, I strayed into Clauses 25 and 26, which should really be here—the revolving door of a revolving sunset. A point I did not make was how much scope the Secretary of State has to keep on altering the direction of how things go with minimum scrutiny because, to me, scrutiny should include an opportunity to make changes. So much is dealt with by regulations. All the clauses on modern slavery are part of a whole, which, as a whole, we oppose. The Bill does nothing to tackle modern slavery and trafficking, does away with support for many victims and damages the UK’s reputation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who spoke earlier, I do not much like the term “world leading”, but that was what people were saying of us not so very long ago.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, a number of years ago, I chaired an inquiry in Scotland for the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the United Kingdom to look into the position of trafficking in Scotland because it was a surprise that at that time there had not been any prosecutions. Was this because there was no problem in Scotland, or was something happening with regards to investigations?

I want the Committee to know that after many years of practice at the Bar, doing some of the most shocking and desperate cases, the experience of chairing that inquiry into modern slavery was revelatory to me in hearing evidence—particularly, of course, from women who had been sexually used, and used in the most horrifying ways, where their whole days were spent servicing men. Afterwards, they needed to be looked after, cared for and encouraged to believe that their families back in the countries from which they had come would not be punished if they were to testify in a court of law. The threats that they had experienced were of such a kind that they lived in terror of those who had victimised and trafficked them.

I really do feel—I heard earlier one of the Conservative Back-Benchers asking the Minister whether he had ever met anyone who had been trafficked—that meeting those who have been trafficked is a shocking business. It also goes on to those who, for example, are subjected to slavery within the domestic environment, who are worked almost to death. They are brought over from other countries, live in households in which they are expected to get up at the crack of dawn and work through until the wee small hours of the following day, and are not rewarded—their wages are supposed to go to their family back somewhere else. The accounts that one hears are just shocking.

The fear that people have, which has to be catered for in having them give testimony in a court of law against those who have been their traffickers, is such that to be removing all of that is just shocking. It is unbelievable to people in other parts of the world. My work has now changed; it is now in international law, and everywhere I go people are shocked by Britain, which led the way on this and was so inventive in creating this legislation. Other countries are now saying “What is Britain thinking about?”, and we are really uncertain as to what the Government are thinking about.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 57C resumed.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I had got as far as “My L—” when I was interrupted. I am sorry, I do not mean “interrupted”: I mean when we heard the Motion that the House be resumed. It was not going to be a major speech—it still is not, although I could have spent the last half-hour working on it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who dealt with the issues very comprehensively, and the Refugee Council, which has been so helpful in briefing us. I simply observe the irony of our debating state support in the context of state-inflicted detention.

[Lord German (LD)]

I apologise to the Committee for speaking twice, but of course this is Committee so I can do it again.

To reiterate some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised, this is an issue which you need to understand if you are to propose and manage this policy and move it further forward. “What happens next?” is not just a big question, it is of crucial importance to people and people’s lives. I will not repeat my statements about assessments, which are well made and obviously made all the time, but we have heard an exposition of this issue, which needs to be resolved. We need answers to those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

58: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of asylum seeker accommodation regulationsThe Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023 are repealed on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the repeal of the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) Regulations 2023.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment relates to a statutory instrument that has recently been approved.

I appreciate that the issues of the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum seekers and the changes in the standards applying to such houses for that purpose may not have crossed the inboxes of most noble Lords; they certainly had not crossed mine until I was told that the SI changing the regulations was scheduled and found myself scheduled to speak on it. Like many such instruments, it was considered in Grand Committee and then went through the House very quickly. The purpose of the instrument is to make provision to exempt accommodation provided by the Home Office for asylum seekers from licensing requirements; that sounds quite straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon; I meant to answer that question and sought specific information from the Bill team on it. The regulations apply only to England and not to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Finally, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to say very much. Many Members are waiting to consider the large number of amendments we are scheduled to get through tonight—whether we will or not, we will see.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his responses to the shedload of questions which came from this side. I was surprised that he started by saying that the regulations are intended to ameliorate conditions for asylum seekers, because it seems to everyone involved that it is about numbers and not better conditions. He has given assurances about engagement with local authorities, but it was the Local Government Association which particularly asked to be reassured about engagement, so this remains a live issue. He said that the lump sum of up to, I think, £3,500 would be paid in the circumstances he mentioned. I had understood from briefing that that was only for the pilot period of four months. Could he let me know after today if that is correct?

Finally, the noble and learned Lord mentioned Migrant Help. There have been a lot of tales over the last few months of people in hotels who have asked for some help from the contract providers who run the hotels or from other staff, and been told, “Oh, go and ask Migrant Help”. I do not think that it is quite the smooth process that was just suggested. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67. I believe these are measured and proportionate steps to preserve existing safeguards around child detention—safeguards introduced by a Conservative Government.

Child detention must only ever be a last resort. That is a clear requirement, as many have said, of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also requires that detention be for the shortest appropriate time. Article 22 requires states to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive “protection and humanitarian assistance”. I hope and believe that these principles will be recognised and shared across your Lordships’ Committee.

There is strong evidence that the mental and physical health impacts of detention on children are severe. For refugee children, often escaping from traumatic circumstances, detention can further compound their trauma. Detention separates children from their peers, interrupts their education, exposes them to violence and denies them the safe, loving and supportive environment that children need to develop and thrive, and which is their right. Detention undermines parental authority and strains the parent-child relationship. This lasts well beyond the period of detention itself. Even short spells in detention can cause trauma and long-term mental health risks for children. When we detain refugee children, we should know that we are making their future lives and integration into society even harder.

My noble friends in government may have said that they recognise these impacts and do not want to detain children, but I am afraid that, as written, this is precisely what the Bill will do. My noble friend Lady Mobarik has explained the existing limits and how the Bill would change them. To reiterate: the detention powers in the Bill would apply to all migrant children and could see them routinely detained in any location for an indefinite period. This is simply not in line with the principle of child detention as a limited last resort.

We know that the immigration system is overstretched. As such, we can reliably expect every time limit and latitude granted to immigration officials by the Bill to be exploited to the full. Therefore, we must make certain that children’s rights and the limits on their detention are guaranteed in law. It is not good enough for my noble friend the Minister to say that child detention should be exceptional. The law must make it exceptional.

There are some problems which new laws can solve. There are other times when new laws will have no effect—or such serious side-effects that they are entirely disproportionate to the problem. If the Government do not feel that they can regulate immigration and asylum without locking up children for extended periods, that is indicative of a broken system. It is not a problem that is resolved by detaining children.

There is no evidence that the introduction of the existing limits on child detention have led to an increase in illegal immigration. There is no reason to think that removing these limits will improve the Government’s ability to control immigration and prevent the dangerous channel crossings. Exposing children to greater risk of harm, with no guarantee of preventing harm, is not a step we should accept.

The existing limits on child detention, brought in after careful consideration by the Conservative Government, meet the practical need that sadly exists. They ensure that detention is strictly controlled and time-limited, as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires. They mitigate the harm that detention causes. They make detention the last resort. That is what we must retain, and I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I remember well when the detention of children was ended by legislation. I visited Cedars, the property—I do not like the term “facility” in this connection—near Gatwick that was used for two or three days before the removal of families who were going to be removed and were at the end of the argument, if you like. What was particularly notable to me were the facilities for the children, and the support that was given to them, who were accommodated there for a very short time, to help them prepare to go back to a country that they may or may not have remembered—indeed, that they may not have ever lived in. It suffused the whole place and was really admirable. You only had to walk into the place to see the equipment and toys, and the information that was set out, as well as the work being done by social workers to support the children concerned. There were no families there at that point; the property used to allow visitors only on days when it knew that no families would be in residence.

I have a number of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 59A, which seeks to probe the “discretion” given to the Secretary of State in making regulations regarding the detention of unaccompanied children. Amendment 64A is a similar amendment. The reason for my tabling this amendment is to understand whether the envisaged discretion can be exercised to extend the circumstances specified in an earlier part of the clause or to narrow those circumstances.

I discovered a possible answer to this when looking at my next amendment, Amendment 61B, which would provide for the affirmative procedure. Amendment 64C is a similar amendment. I tabled this amendment out of pure instinct that there should be an affirmative procedure, not a negative one. I subsequently discovered that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, with considerably more logic than I bring to the matter, recommended the affirmative procedure. I quote its report:

“The Memorandum explains that the negative procedure is considered appropriate because ‘the effect of any regulations is to limit the circumstances in which an unaccompanied child may be detained or the duration of detention for the purposes of removal’. In our view, this explanation is misconceived”.


That is very much committee speak for, “We really disagree”. The report went on:

“The regulation making power can only be viewed as a limiting power from the perspective of the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons which conferred an unfettered power to detain unaccompanied children”.


However, amendments were then made in the Commons, so

“no such unfettered power of detention exists in the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords. It is the regulations alone which will specify the circumstances in which unaccompanied children will be capable of being detained, in the absence of which there is no power to detain such children. Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, we consider that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply”.

As I say, the committee approached this with considerably more logic and power than I was planning to bring to it.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My question is even more simple: where is the impact assessment? I think the purpose of impact assessments is to inform the legislative decision. We hear that there will be an impact assessment and it will be produced shortly, but it seems unlikely to be produced while this Bill is being considered in this House. I think that is rather insulting, particularly as the Government rest their intellectual case on the deterrent effect. They say that the numbers will go down as word gets about of how people are to be treated, what “inadmissibility” means and how it is to be applied.

I am strongly against that on legal grounds—I think we should honour our international commitments—and humanitarian grounds, but it is impossible just to consider this argument on its merits if we cannot see the assumptions underlying the Government’s judgment of the impact. The questions from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, are all extremely apposite and I look forward to the answers to them, but it seems to me that in relation to the deterrent effect, the impact assessment—wherever it is, whenever we will see it—will have to consider why people leave their home country and seek asylum far away. Why are they coming here? Will they be deterred by talk of us getting more brutal? We are going to get more brutal if we pass this Bill, but we are not going to get half as brutal as the conditions of the countries from which they are fleeing—75% of those seeking asylum in this country are found by the processes to have a well-founded fear of death or persecution back home.

Talk of pull factors is all nonsense: it is all about push factors. They are fleeing from horrors, from famine, from massacre, from murder and from war. It is difficult to see the deterrent factor as likely to be to be large, given the scale of the factors that are bringing about the flow. The impact assessment may prove me wrong. Certainly, the Government should, if they have the courage of their convictions, produce the evidence and the assumptions that underlie these convictions, and they should do it before we finish considering the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the underlying provisions that we should know about is the safe and legal routes that we are told will deal with any number of people? Situations change so fast. I am not sure we had quite started the Bill when Sudan flared up as it did. There is an awful lot we need to know in order to know how the Bill will work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group because they are at the heart of whether or not we are acting in conformity with our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which I believe we are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has most helpfully brought to our attention the view of the committee set up to watch over the application by all 192 members of the UN to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its view is negative.

I am well aware that the United Nations does not have any enforcement powers in this matter—sadly, perhaps—but that does not mean that the British Government, which is usually a member of the UN in good standing and good faith, can simply ignore the views of the committee that was set up to watch over this legislation. To do so will have quite serious consequences in a much wider field, because there are plenty of members of the United Nations who shelter behind the lack of enforceability of the UN, whether it is in the Security Council or elsewhere, to do things that we, quite rightly, condemn outright, whether in Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait or wherever. The cost to this country of simply riding roughshod over our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is therefore quite serious.

The Minister will no doubt remind us that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not incorporated into our domestic law. That is correct, but it was ratified by this country. How do we know that it was ratified, and how do we know that it covers all the provisions which this legislation is at variance with? Because we made two or three rather small, explicit reservations from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, none of which is relevant to the present matters we are debating—they relate to enrolment in the Armed Forces, education and so on. We accepted all the rest, and we ratified it and told the United Nations that we were going to apply all the rest. Now, we are going back on that.

I hope the Minister will not simply tell us that his opinion and that of the Home Office is that we are not infringing any of these obligations. I do not honestly think that that cuts any ice at all. I would be delighted if he would take, one by one, the articles cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and explain why he has a different interpretation of those provisions. I say that more in hope than expectation, because the Minister does not seem to like answering specific questions of that sort. However, I hope on this occasion he will overcome his reluctance to do that and will address these problems. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a serious matter. It is bringing better conditions for children worldwide. It is being used as an instrument to strike down all sorts of discrimination, and here we are building up new sorts.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. I, and we on these Benches, agree with pretty much everything that has been said, and with the specific amendments, including the first, introduced very succinctly by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

I shall go back almost to the beginning of the debate. I do not come from a Conservative family—rather far from it, in fact; they were good News Chronicle-reading Liberals from Manchester—but they would have agreed with everything that the noble and learned Baroness said. I wonder whether, like me, she finds it particularly offensive that when the issue of the best interests of the child are raised, what the Government so often say is, “Of course we observe the best interests of the child. Of course we always take the best interests into account”, even to the extent, I may say, of sometimes saying that in immigration law best interests are paramount, which sadly they are not—not quite.

Amendment 18, also about unaccompanied children, would address the position—this seems to be a bit of a minnow compared with some of the points that have been made—when the Secretary of State has not been able to make arrangements with her, as I am bound to say, or his self-imposed duty to remove someone within six months, or, in the case of a child who arrives unaccompanied, within six months after the child has ceased to be unaccompanied. The Government must face up to what should happen if the Secretary of State sets herself a duty and then does not comply with it. This amendment would provide for regulations to except these cohorts. Though Parliament obviously could not amend the regulations, at least it would provide for the position.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, there is the naivety of the Government in suggesting that people could assist the prosecutions by doing it from another country. We do not have enough prosecutions. The main way to deal with modern slavery is to prosecute the traffickers—those abroad who come here or can be found, and those who are in this country. There has been some success—but a limited success because you have to have witnesses to give the evidence. Even today there is not enough evidence given by witnesses, who are slow to come forward. I have to ask the Government: do they really think that if somebody is sent to another country against their will, having been already traumatised by being a victim of slavery, they are going to help the Government who deported them to deal with their traffickers? It seems extremely unlikely. On those three points, I strongly support what is going on now.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, whenever there is a reference to the ouster of the courts and tribunals in the context of this Bill, I think how ironic it is that we heard from the Government that they cannot give a certificate of compatibility with the Human Rights Act because it has not been tested by the courts.

Here again, it seems to me that we are conflating modern slavery and trafficking with immigration. That is misconceived and it is immoral. My name is on a number of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—not all of them, but this was due to the nature of the process, not any disregard of those amendments. An awful lot of organisations were continuing to suggest amendments pretty much as we walked into the Chamber.

The concern about this is very widespread. The amendments in this group are going in the same direction. Everyone who has spoken shares a concern about victims being scapegoated and their positions not understood. I have so much admiration for people such as the Filipino—I assume a domestic servant—the young man mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. What people manage to do with their lives after the experiences they have gone through leaves me almost lost for words and feeling huge responsibility to try to do my best for them, even if it is not a very good best. We heard earlier today about the arrangements that the Government have for returns. The very fact that the Government have recently been negotiating with Moldova, Bulgaria and I do not know who else, about co-operation to prevent trafficking—I think it is trafficking and not just, if you can use the word “just”, smuggling—indicates the Government’s clear awareness that this is all happening. But negotiation is not a result.

The Government must not ignore that asylum seekers smuggled in are very vulnerable to exploitation as a result of the Government’s own policies. I may, at some other time, if I can and if she will allow me, quote the very apt and succinct description by the noble and learned Baroness, “escape does not mean exit”. People have said this at greater lengths during proceedings on this Bill, but that really does sum it up.

Not for the first time, those of us who have added our names to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seem to be a little band who work together. I will not repeat everything that has been said, but the Secretary of State sets rules for other people—in this case, very vulnerable people—so there must be consequences if the Secretary of State does not observe or fails the rules she has set.

The British Red Cross and others have been very clear about the effect of limbo on physical and mental health. It is not surprising that people now disappear into the black economy, exploitation and destitution. They must feel that they are being treated as if they are not human. Limbo should not be indefinite. I do not know how the provisions fit with the Home Office’s own guidance that the inadmissibility process, which currently does apply in some circumstances, must not create a lengthy limbo where delaying means the claimant cannot advance his or her protection claim.

Clause 4(3) deals with claims which are declared inadmissible. I ask again: what data will be published about claims which have been declared to be inadmissible? Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will publish details, particularly the numbers, of declarations of inadmissibility? I cannot see that they will be regarded as claims which are refused because they never get to the stage of being considered. It is essential that we know how this Bill is working—if that is the right way to describe how the Bill, and maybe an Act, will proceed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed the intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

I do not often say anything good about this Government but they do, at times, think outside the box. They really do think up novel practices and novel moves in all sorts of areas. I admire massively the people who have gone through this Bill and put amendments forward. Sometimes I have time to do that myself on Bills. This particular clause is so bad—how can we improve it? There are two particularly dangerous proposals, which we have already heard. The first is that the courts will not be able to pause or prevent a deportation, even where that deportation will be clearly unlawful. Secondly, the Government can, by diktat, declare a person’s human rights as inadmissible. Where does that come from? Who thought that up? It is just incredibly creative. As it is novel practice, it is also dangerous. A precedent is being set that the Government can simply rule that some people do not have any human rights and that a Government can act unlawfully without any intervention from the courts. Human rights are for everyone—which is something this Government seem to forget—or they are not human rights. The courts must be allowed to protect those rights against the Government.

We have to stop this illegal Bill. I see no option but to start voting out chunks of it. If we can possibly intervene at the end, we should vote all of it down.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I heap plaudits on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. That was worthy of a legal lecture. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, caught his plane, but that was a common-sense lesson in the law spoken with a great deal of humility. I will not call it a lecture because it was too humble and too articulate for that. I associate myself with all those remarks. I have signed only some of the amendments, but I am happy to endorse all the amendments that are against retrospection in the Bill. Our position on retrospection comes from common decency, common sense and common law before we get anywhere near ECHR obligations and other international obligations. Do not change the rules after the game has begun.

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is back in his place. He is a great one for the Clapham omnibus. I think this idea of changing the rules half way through the game is something that anyone on the Clapham omnibus or any lay person anywhere in our country would completely understand, and that is why all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are so important. It is profoundly unfair to say to people who are already in this country, who have already come to claim asylum, whether they will eventually succeed in their claims or not, should be subject to this new, punitive, retrospective regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clear and articulate, but he is also forensic because there are some extreme situations in which retrospection is permissible and even I would support retrospection. The famous one is marital rape. We know that once upon a time in our country it was not considered rape for a man to rape his wife. That position was changed in the courts in relation to a particular case. This had been brewing for some time. People thought the law was out of step with contemporary views on equal treatment of women and what is acceptable even within marriage. That was changed in a single case in which a man was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife. He took his claim all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the court said no, this rape is so profoundly contrary to our international accepted norms that in this case we will accept that retrospection did not offend the common decency principle that you should not punish people retrospectively.

That is the kind of case we are talking about, in which it is acceptable to do that—not in this context. These are very vulnerable, desperate people. Whatever the views of noble Lords in this Committee about the acceptability of this regime, and we will disagree about that, in my view and that of many Members, as we have heard today, applying this to people who came here in good faith, and in many cases in desperation, on the understanding that the refugee convention would be applied in one way, is punitive and discriminatory, contrary to the convention. Retrospection adds insult to injury. I hope the Committee will not accept it and will instead support all the amendments that deal with retrospection in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to have been able to add my name to the noble Lord’s amendments. I am grateful to him for introducing them so clearly. I am conscious that my name is among those of noted advocates in different contexts.

We are already in an Alice in Wonderland—although I am not sure it is really a wonderland—world, where we are told that asylum seekers will know enough about UK restrictions and provisions to be deterred from trying to get here. I do not recognise that proposition. Added to that is the idea that people who are already here should have known what is in the Bill even before most MPs had an opportunity to pick up a copy of it.

The noble Lord referred to legislation coming into effect when it gets Royal Assent. Yes, of course it does, but very often—almost invariably—in a limited way. Some clauses come into effect, usually the jurisdiction and that type of thing, but many of the provisions and most of the legislation that we deal with have to wait for secondary legislation: that is, the provisions that implement what is in the primary legislation.

I absolutely agree with what has been said about certainty, clarity, predictability and so on. This Bill displays a casual attitude, which goes against not only legal principles but, as I think has been said, common decency. If I were to ask the Minister what is so compelling about the Bill that it should be an exception to all this, I have no doubt that I would be told, “We’ve got to stop the boats”.

As the noble Lord just said, the Nationality and Borders Bill—now Act—had the same policy objective, yet the channel crossings kept on rising and they have gone on rising. If I wanted evidence that retrospectivity had an effect in practical terms, I would have expected to find that they had come down in number since 7 March—but they have not.

I have two amendments in this group; my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville also has her name to the first of these, Amendment 9, which proposes to leave out Clause 2(7). Subsection (7) provides that

“limited leave to enter or remain given”

to an unaccompanied child “is to be disregarded”. It says, in effect that, for the purposes of Clause 3(1), we are to disregard what has already happened. It is another bit of retrospectivity. What use is the leave that is referred to in Clause 2(7)? To disregard it is unprincipled. Such leave should be taken into account in determining whether a child has leave to enter or remain; the Government have given it.

I will raise a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and myself, were discussing during the dinner break—it justifies our having had a dinner break, I think—and that is the question of adoption. I have not seen the comment made by the Children’s Commissioner, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will talk about, but I understand it suggests that, in the case of a child who has been adopted, and who falls within the provisions of the Bill as currently set out, that adoption in some way could be undone, despite the fact that the child has become a member of a British family.

I would have thought that the four conditions would not have been met, but we must be absolutely clear about this. If someone with the credentials of the Children’s Commissioner suggests that there is an issue here, we must have an absolutely clear statement from the Dispatch Box that that is not so and, preferably, an amendment from the Government making it clear that it is not so.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief in speaking to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

As the son of an immigrant, it always makes me uneasy when that word is spoken in vain. I am the son of an immigrant who was a member of the Sikh community which came to the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and helped to build this country by working their guts out in the foundries of the West Midlands. Most of the foundry workers were Sikhs.

The Sikh population in the UK is now about 550,000 people. It is one of the most successful communities in the UK, with the lowest number of benefit claimants, the lowest unemployment rate and high rates of home ownership. Only 4% of the Sikh community lives in social rented housing, compared with 18% of other groups. It has the highest proportion of people in high-skill occupations at 39%, compared with 30% among other groups. Only 2% of the Sikh elderly are in care homes compared with a much higher number in other communities. A recent BBC study found that Sikhs are the most generous group when it comes to giving to charities. Over 60,000 meals—langar—are served every week on the streets of the UK by Sikhs. And yet—this is my first point—in a recent faith report for the Government by Colin Bloom, the impression given was that Sikhs are terrorists and extremists. I do not accept that characterisation of the Sikh community.

As for the Bill, I wish the Prime Minister had shredded it along with the other European papers. Whichever way you look at it, the Bill stinks to high heaven. It does not speak to our country’s traditional moral values, our international obligations on human rights, the UN convention on refugees, the European convention against human trafficking, other international treaties and so on and so forth. All these have been mentioned by other noble Lords. There is not a decent principle in the Bill that does not break human rights. I fully agree with these amendments.

We shredded our position and power in the world by pulling out of the European Union. Now, we are shredding our moral obligation in the world with this Bill—and what for? For a few votes in so-called “red wall” areas. Our Prime Minister and Home Secretary should think again before pursuing the Bill. As the son and daughter of immigrants, they should know how much immigrants have given to this country. I support these amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought his copy of Hansard from Second Reading with him. My recollection of the Minister’s explanation regarding Section 19(1)(b) was that the matter had not been tested by the courts. That sticks in my mind because I thought it was curious, since the Government are rather critical of people running off to the courts for interpretations of the law.

I will say quickly, because I want to put it on the record, that I subscribe to the view that no asylum seeker can be illegal and to the comments about international law which have been made. I am afraid that I am going to retreat from the big picture and Second Reading to Amendment 1—possibly unconventionally. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling it, because it made me start thinking about the definitions of a lot of other terms used in Clause 1. The term he has singled out—I agree with him that it needs clarity—raises a lot of issues. There is a sort of endless loop of argument about compliance by the individual and compliance by the Government in their assessment of what they are doing.

In my mind, that is not the only phrase in Clause 1(1) that needs to be clearer. The same sentence uses the wording,

“and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.

That raises a lot of issues, does it not? Unsafe, of course, is a matter of judgment. As for illegal routes, in legislative terms, how does a route become illegal? What does “and in particular” signify in this context? Does the reference to unsafe and illegal routes exclude other routes? I really do not know. It is good prose, but not in this context.

Another phrase which bothers me at a technical and, I have to say, a political and a practical level is

“in breach of immigration control”.

Superficially, one understands what that means, but I do not know and was unable to find whether this is a technical phrase and so legally clear within domestic law. Immigration control is breached by a contravention of legislation, I would think, at a given time. That is clear enough. However, in the area we are discussing, the Immigration Rules—which we know are constantly changing and which come from Ministers and do not touch the sides for parliamentary scrutiny—are part of immigration control. So, I would be interested to know what that means in this context. It seems to me that one could portray this as delegation to Ministers by another mechanism. It is not clear—this is the political point, I suppose—so it is not a deterrent. I think it is inappropriate and gives more power to the Executive, which the Constitution Committee reports are given

“an unusual degree of power”

by the Bill.

I have added my name to Amendment 84. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place; I did not expect to find that the debate on this would come today, and possibly neither did he. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for highlighting compliance with the anti-trafficking conventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that we need to come together with a single list that we can gather around.

I do not want to pre-empt debates on the substantive issues regarding trafficking and slavery—I say that without intending to suggest that the conventions and directives are not significant; they are—but will simply say that I expect the term “world-leading” to be used quite a lot with reference to the Modern Slavery Act when we get to that part of the Bill. The international nature of trafficking means that the UK has to consider it internationally and comply with conventions and directives—which brings us directly back to the point that many other noble Lords have made.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 4, 84 and 148. I shall not speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. As for those later amendments, I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say about their meaning and effect on the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 2. Let me begin by way of introduction by explaining what I understand to be the effect of Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which will disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Importantly, it does not mean that the convention ceases to apply to matters covered by the Bill or to acts by Ministers and officials; they will still be covered by it. Section 3 provides that

“primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.

Migrants: Housing

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

There has been no intention to set aside any provision of the Children Act. As the noble Lord will have seen on his careful reading of the Illegal Migration Bill, there are provisions set out that deal with the transfer of responsibility for children and the approach to be taken to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive after 7 March of this year.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, there are so many questions arising about the standards that will apply in the “facilities”—if I can use that term—around safeguarding, how families with or without children will be dealt with, and how children alone will be dealt with, and around facilities for medical provision, legal advice and so on. Will the Government publish the contracts that they are entering into with private sector providers, so that one can keep an eye on what standards are being required of them?

Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling this Motion to Regret, and echo her call for these rules to be withdrawn—they are unacceptable.

I think it is useful to put this in the context of Oral Questions earlier. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, speaking for the Government on their plans for the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavik. The noble Lord said that this was

“an important opportunity for member states to renew their commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.

Yet here we are, debating regulations that clearly fail to meet basic standards of human rights. Basic standards are being denied to people in the UK. That is horrifying in its own moral terms but, thinking about the state of the world and the role the UK Government say they wish to play in it, it is definitely going to damage our status and our ability to have impact in the rest of the world.

It might be said that it is some of the usual suspects in your Lordships’ House who are saying these things, but we are reflecting the conclusions of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These regulations remove important safeguards and reduce standards, including for children and vulnerable adults, and the Government have

“not provided an adequate policy justification”

for or consulted on these changes. This was brought in while the House was in recess. There are blows everywhere to democracy, the rule of law and all the things that the Government say they are standing up for.

I want to briefly reflect, drawing on a report by Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian last month, on what was happening at Manston and what is apparently being regularised. The journalist quoted a Home Office employee who said that what was happening in Manston

“had got way beyond what was ethical and humane … There were people who’d been sleeping on a mat on the floor of a marquee for 20 days”.

Some families had been

“shut inside tents without access to fresh air”

for seven days. This is unacceptable.

One of the other issues was private security contractors. It is a particular concern where we see removal of democratic oversight through outsourcing and privatisation. A company that usually does security for festivals and shopping centres suddenly had staff, clearly not trained for the practices, who had to deal with a very difficult situation.

There is a lot to say, but we have limited time, so I want to focus on a couple of issues. There are much broader issues around immigration detention and the fact that the UK is one of the very few countries in the world that locks up for an indeterminate period—sometimes for years—people who have not even been accused of any crime. I ask the Minister directly, under the RHR regulations we are debating, why is there no maximum legal time limit, as there is to an STHF? Will the Government commit to introducing a time limit?

What kind of system have we now arrived at? Will the Minister confirm that the current changes will see a dramatic change in the amount and form of detention being used in the UK in the coming months and years? Is the Minister concerned about increasing breaches of human rights, in particular the right to be protected from arbitrary detention, torture and inhumane and degrading treatment?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, if I did not speak to this Motion and support it, I think I would be haunted by the ghost of the late Lord Eric Avebury, for whom improvement of the conditions in which people are held at the border was something of a mission. I appreciate that I am speaking of a Member of this House who died some time ago, but his legacy lives on with some of us.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has been very thorough. I hope that the Minister managed to note all her questions. If I repeat any of them, I apologise to the House; I do not think my editing quite kept up with all she had to say. The noble Baroness said that the House did not need reminding of the concern there has been, and which remains, about conditions at Manston and the number of people held in those conditions. Perhaps we should not be surprised that, instead of changing “facilities”—a term which I find rather inappropriate in this context—to fit the rules, the rules are being changed to fit the facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

The enduring solution to this challenge is to stop the illegal, dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings that are beginning to overwhelm our asylum infrastructure. That new legislative regime—as the House is well aware—is the Government’s ultimate objective. The recently introduced Illegal Migration Bill, which will shortly arrive in your Lordships’ House, will change the law so that those arriving in the United Kingdom illegally may be detained and then promptly removed to a safe third country or their home country. In the meantime, the creation of residential holding rooms will give our hard-working Border Force officers the time they need to undertake their vital work and keep our country safe. In light of all that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness responds, I asked a question about DBS checks. I wonder whether the Minister is able to answer it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly. It remains my understanding that those who have dealings with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would be the subject of DBS checks. Whether it is the case that all of those working at the Manston site have DBS checks—those working with adults—I cannot answer at this point, but I would anticipate that is the case. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness in respect of that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will understand that vulnerable adults need safeguarding as well—it is much wider that children.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course; I entirely accept that.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to present these draft rules, which deal with two vitally important issues, to the Committee. I will first touch on the provisions in relation to deprivation of citizenship in this instrument.

Keeping the public safe is a top priority for the Government. Deprivation of citizenship, where it is conducive to the public good, is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. It is key to our ability to preserve the UK’s national security. The Committee will recall that the deprivation measures in the Nationality and Borders Act attracted much considered and thorough debate. This House and the other place agreed that, in cases where the Secretary of State intends to make a deprivation order on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good without giving notice, an application must be made to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC, which will consider the Secretary of State’s reasons not to give notice.

In November 2022, we took a first step towards implementation of this process by amending the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, giving the Lord Chancellor powers to amend procedure rules in relation to these applications. We now intend to make the required amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which is the purpose of this instrument.

This instrument sets out a clear framework for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Secretary of State when dealing with such applications. It makes clear the information an application is required to contain and makes provision for the Secretary of State to vary or withdraw an application. It confirms the Secretary of State as the single party to proceedings and makes provision to appeal a determination of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission where necessary. The instrument also sets out that the commission must give a determination within 14 days of receipt of an application or its variation. This reflects the fact that the Secretary of State may have to act quickly in the interests of national security. The instrument is the final stage in implementing the safeguards relating to Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which were agreed in the passage of that Act.

Turning to credibility statements, Sections 19 and 22 of the 2022 Act create additional behaviours that should result in an asylum or human rights claimant’s credibility being damaged. These includes a requirement for decision-makers to consider the late provision of evidence in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice, without good reasons, as behaviour that should be damaging to a claimant’s credibility.

As part of this suite of measures being introduced to encourage the timely provision of evidence in support of asylum and human rights claims, Sections 19 and 22 of the 2022 Act also establish a requirement for both the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules and the asylum and immigration chamber procedure rules to secure that when judges dispose of asylum and human rights decisions, and where credibility issues arise, they must include in their decisions a statement on how they have taken account of all potential credibility-damaging behaviours when reaching those decisions. These changes to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules effectively secure in rules what judges are already required to do, according to the current case law.

The instrument and the creation of new procedure rules, however, make it abundantly clear what judges are required to do. This will assist in making sure that there is clear and efficient decision-making. I commend these rules to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that the Committee and the Deputy Chairman of Committees will understand that my sitting down today is not a sign of any disrespect to any Member or to the Committee. I thank the Minister for his introduction to this instrument. I do not think he will be surprised to know that I am not thanking him for the instrument itself, and very much not for the Nationality and Borders Act.

Those of us who find difficulty with proceedings in any number of areas, particularly when they are closed, are generally assured by the Government that we should not worry because there is judicial oversight. I cannot recall whether this was so in the case of Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act, but the instrument points up the hollowness of such an argument. As the Minister explained, Section 10 provides that the Secretary of State does not have to give notice of deprivation of citizenship in certain circumstances, and, if she

“reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of”

certain matters,

“that notice … should not be given.”

That is in new Section 40(5A)(b) of the 1981 Act, which includes

“the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.

I understand the Minister to have included that in his list of high harms. It is quite easy to think of examples of what might be necessary so as not to annoy another state, which I think would come within the relationship between the UK and another state. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether he expects this power to be used very narrowly, and confirm that proportionality will apply?

We are reliant on the commission to assess the reasonableness of the view of the Secretary of State but even the commission does not have a free hand. Under Section 25E in the new Part 4A,

“The Commission must determine the application on paper without a hearing”.


My second question is: why is it “must” and not “may”? If we are to have any confidence in the process as a whole, should we not trust the commission to decide for itself whether determination on paper is appropriate? Can the Minister explain this? Can he explain to the Committee what will happen if the commission, having seen the paper application, has questions of the Secretary of State and wants to hear from counsel on her behalf?

I admit that I have no experience in this, other than debates in your Lordships’ House over the years and briefings from professionals and others involved in the process, but it seems that it is all too easy for such an application to become completely formulaic. Once there is a formula which is considered to pass the not “obviously flawed” threshold or test, that will go to the commission without, apparently, its being able to say, “Yes, but”. The “obviously flawed” test is in the new Schedule 4A. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Home Secretary herself could want a hearing? We will never know because there is no one to ask. We are not even getting that close to the territory of closed hearings and special advocates here.

I find it difficult to understand what role this appeal court would be left with. We will know next to nothing—probably nothing—about the use of these powers. Paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:

“As the Home Secretary decides each case personally and due to the very low number of cases expected to be affected by these provisions, no specific monitoring or review of these measures will be undertaken.”


In this situation, reporting is almost a synonym for monitoring. Can the Minister at least give an assurance that there will be reporting? I cannot see that it could be very difficult. What harm would be caused? I do not think that I need to spell out why a report in the public domain is desirable and essential. So often we are told, not only by Home Office Ministers but from the Dispatch Box, that there is no need for a review of a provision in primary legislation, because there is an automatic, periodic review of all legislation that the Government put through. However, no review of the measures means no review of Section 10. In our view, there should be reporting, not just of numbers but, for instance, of whether men or women are affected by deprivation orders, and, importantly, whether each individual has, or is considered to have, dual nationality. Indeed, can the Minister confirm—I appreciate that it is a bit beyond this instrument—whether the powers will be used only in the cases of individuals who are citizens of another state? Does the appetite for secrecy really mean that the state is protecting us?

I have been doing my best to avoid reference to an ongoing case, and I do not seek to draw the Minister into it—I know that he will not be drawn in—but it is justifiable to ask about the cohort of women known to be in a camp in Syria, who are held there because of their IS connections. Can one really say of them that their whereabouts are unknown? They are not going anywhere; they are known to be in the camp, although they cannot contact lawyers. For reasons the Grand Committee will understand, given his widely reported comments last month regarding a case before SIAC, have the Government consulted the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation? This is about legislation; Jonathan Hall is independent.

I have referred to judicial oversight. What I take from the instrument is that oversight of the process can be no more than minimal, and therefore oversight of the process is eliminated.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her remarks; I agree with much of what she said.

I will confine myself to dealing with the SI before us, notwithstanding what many of us thought about the Nationality and Borders Act. As the Minister told us in his helpful introduction, the SI makes two required amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission after the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act. They are two amendments which many of us sought to introduce. We all support keeping our nation safe, but as a democracy, even in circumstances of national security, safeguards need to be built in. We all agree that citizenship is a privilege and a right, but in depriving someone of their citizenship, some checks are needed, to say the least. We therefore welcome the changes to the process, although I may have comments about how we actually got here.

The amendment requiring the Secretary of State to make an application to SIAC when making an order to deprive someone of their citizenship is important and welcome. That application must include an explanation as to why it is necessary for that order to be made without providing notice to the individual, and SIAC will then be required to determine whether the Secretary of State’s view is “obviously flawed”.

I have some questions for the Minister. What does “obviously flawed” mean? Can he give an example of what is meant by that? Can the Minister say who can advise the Minister that such a deprivation of citizenship is necessary? Is it only the Home Secretary who can apply to SIAC, or can the Foreign Secretary, for instance, do it? I think that I know the answer, but, as I mentioned to the Minister outside the Grand Committee, it is sometimes necessary to put those things on the record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to, are such applications made public in any way, either when they are made, or during or after any SIAC determination?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Indeed, as with any court.

In respect of the noble Lord’s question on Rule 47 as to credibility, the question being whether a claimant’s good reasons for responding late to a priority removal notice would be taken into account in cases that go to SIAC, the answer is yes.

To pick up one point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the use against dual citizens, it is right and clear in the statutory regime that an order using a deprivation power cannot be made that would have the effect of rendering a person stateless, hence the need for two nationalities, except that there is a very limited provision in Section 40(4A) of the Act, but that power has not been used to date. In any event, deprivation on conducive grounds is used sparingly and against those who pose a serious threat to the UK. It is correct that the conducive power is limited so that it can be applied only to those who are dual citizens or where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person can become a national of another country. Parliament chose to enact the power on that basis to avoid the prospect of leaving individuals stateless, which would be contrary to the UK’s commitments under the 1961 statelessness convention.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

If the Minister is coming to his closing paragraph to urge this instrument, then I am afraid that I have a number of questions to remind him of. However, I am glad to hear what he said about dual nationality. I was concerned because I thought he used the phrase “potential nationalities”. I do not know how one can potentially be a national of a particular country.

I will run through some points that I do not think he has been able to pick up. I raised the proportionality point in connection with Section 40(5A)(b)(iv), which is when the Secretary of State considers it necessary in the interest of the relationship between the UK and another country. I hope the Minister can confirm that there will be proportionality in that, rather than the general point he made.

I do not think the Minister answered the question on “must” deal with the matter on the papers rather than “may”, nor my question on whether the commission can call for more information and can even ask to hear from the Secretary of State.

The Minister referred to paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum. He might need to take this away, but to repeat, we are told by this that, because there is expected to be a “very low number” of cases,

“no specific monitoring or review … will be undertaken”.

My question was about reporting and the Minister answered on reporting in a general way. I would be glad to hear that there will be specific reporting on these deprivation without notice applications.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In relation to Rule 25E, the noble Baroness is quite right. It is imperative that the commission determines the application on paper and without a hearing. As I elucidated a moment ago, that process is deliberately framed so that it can be resolved quickly because of the national security issues implicit in a deprivation decision. I am afraid that it is a “must” for a reason, and not a “may”. Clearly, SIAC, like any court, is able to make a decision on the information available to it and, if it feels that it lacks information, it is entirely open to it to ask for further information from the party appearing before it. I hope that that answers the question.

On the dual nationality point, the word “potential” is significant. The question in the statute is whether a person is eligible for citizenship of another country. That gives rise to the power to deprive under Section 40(4A), which is the power that I mentioned, which has yet to be deployed to date. As to reporting, I hear the noble Baroness’s question and I shall find out further detail and write to her in respect of it. I hope that I have therefore addressed the questions posed.

I want to be absolutely clear that the power to deprive an individual of citizenship has been possible for over a century. Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act does not change the reasons for which a person can be deprived of their citizenship, nor does it remove a person’s right of appeal. It is simply about the mechanics of how a deprivation decision is conveyed to the individual concerned and recognises that, in certain exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible to give notice.

The Home Office will always try to serve any deprivation notice at the point of a decision, including providing information about the person’s statutory appeal rights. Where that is not possible, and the person later makes contact with the Home Office, they will be issued with a decision notice and an explanation of their appeal rights. Section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act clarifies that the timescales for lodging an appeal in these cases starts from when they are given the notice of the deprivation decision and not when the decision was first made.

In conclusion, this instrument is in the final stage of implementing the safeguards, as noble Lords noted, which will hold the Government to account in relation to decisions to deprive a person of citizenship without first giving them notice. It will also ensure that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is required to include credibility statements in any relevant decisions that it makes that dispose of asylum and human rights claims. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Grand Committee

The additions to the 2023 scheme which I have outlined will ensure that the authority to carry policy continues to operate effectively and will reflect the wider developments of the UK’s border security measures, particularly the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation for non-visa nationals. Like the previous authority to carry schemes, the proposed 2023 scheme will be an important element of our multilayered approach to border security, alongside the visa regime, universal permission to travel and our checks at the border. The Government are committed to ensuring the continued safety and security of the UK border. This new authority to carry scheme is central to that effort. I commend these regulations to the Committee .

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations and the scheme in such detail. I am afraid I have some questions—even though I know he takes the view that debates are opportunities for debate rather than asking questions.

I appreciate and understand that the scheme is to align with the electronic travel authorisation system. The regulations and therefore the scheme come into effect when the instrument is made, as I understand it. I spoke to the Public Bill Office about this this morning, because I wanted to be clear about it. The Minister has just said that when the new scheme comes into effect, the 2021 scheme will be revoked. That seems to suggest that there has to be some very careful timing. As the regulations are not replacing earlier regulations, if there is a problem under the earlier scheme, the new regulations can cope with it smoothly. That is how the PBO explained it. Is that actually the case? Does the timing have to align with the EU’s new border arrangements? Most particularly, when will the ETA come into effect? I know we still await details of it: how it will be implemented, its cost and how its application will be approved. There is obviously a lot of concern about practical aspects for both carriers and travellers.

Paragraph 14(d) of the scheme provides that authority to carry may be refused for individuals

“in relation to whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision that the individual be made subject of an exclusion order”.

In other words, it can bite before an order is made. Do I have that right? If so, can that be right? The Secretary of State surely needs to make an order; it is not automatic.

It is similar for individuals who—the Minister has used this terminology already—

“would be refused entry clearance or a visa”

under the new rules and for individuals who

“would be refused an ETA”,

entry clearance or a visa under the rules. That is even further away from the decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee—because I assume that quite a lot of this replicates the earlier schemes, so they are not just hypotheticals—how this is proper. Immigration Rules are subject to change without parliamentary involvement. What right of appeal is there, particularly if there is a refusal before the Secretary of State has reached a decision? It does not feel comfortable to me.

We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that an ETA may be cancelled when that is in the public interest, and that, under the earlier schemes, authority has been refused in respect of—it has now gone up to—11,200 individuals. That is a lot of individuals, each one of whom, and their family in many cases, is no less affected. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, as a percentage of all arrivals it is quite small—but it is a lot of individual people. Does the Minister know how many of the 11,200 were UK residents? How will the Government ensure that certain nationalities or ethnicities will not be disproportionately affected by the scheme? The Minister also mentioned revocation of leave. If or when that happens, will the individual be notified? Will he be aware of that revocation?

There has been praise for the bespoke schemes for Ukrainians fleeing the war. How will the travel authorisation schemes operate to ensure that the UK’s response to other humanitarian crises is not hindered? Sadly, there are many other conflict areas and an awful lot of people affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

I am sure the Minister is not thrown by having a number of questions raised without notice; I looked at this only over the weekend. The questions I raise may sound like matters of detail, but I think that in fact they are all matters of principle.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The SI replaces the 2021 no-fly scheme that prevents terrorists, serious criminals and others travelling into the UK via aircraft, ships or trains. The scheme was introduced in 2012 and was updated by statutory instrument in 2015 and 2021.

The 2023 scheme extends the range of people who carriers can be refused authority to carry to those refused an ETA or those travelling without a valid document or travelling on the document of another person. Penalties of up to £50,000 were put in place on carriers that breached the terms of the scheme. The maximum penalty has not increased since the original scheme in 2015. Is there any scope for increasing this maximum, along the lines of inflation or something like that? This question was asked in 2021, but I am not sure that my noble friend who asked it got a reply.

The ETA scheme has not been introduced, nor have details been released on how it would work, who would need to apply for it, how much it would cost or on what grounds it would be revoked. As we have heard, the Government have stated that it will be in place by the end of 2024. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the case for when it will be introduced?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of pertinent questions about the alignment of the ETA with EU regulations and how it will work with the wider carrier network, if I can put it like that.

In response to questions raised in the Commons this month, the Minister stated that 23 penalties have been imposed over the seven years of the scheme and that the number of people prevented from travelling has stayed consistent over this time. The figures given were that 1,702 people were prevented from boarding in 2016-17 and 1,700 in 2022-23. In the 2021 Lords debate, the Minister did not respond to questions about whether some carriers had been repeat offenders. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on whether particular carriers are repeat offenders when fines are given to them.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Updated guidance will be provided to industry”,


but no detail has been provided on when that will take place. Can the Minister tell us when that updated guidance may be available?

Finally, there is the status of transit passengers. How are they brought into the scope of these regulations and will they be affected? Having said that, we support the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

The 2023 scheme applies to all carriers operating on international routes to and from the UK, including the common travel area, which have been required to provide passenger and crew information in advance of departure. As such, it is an important part of the UK’s border security arrangements.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

As the Minister is coming to the end of his response, I remind him about my questions on how it will work when there is to be a refusal in relation to someone whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision about or where someone would be refused entry clearance or would be refused under the rules and so on. These are issues of quite considerable importance and principle because they are proposing that refusals may be made before the Secretary of State has made a decision. Can the Minister say anything about that?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Forgive me: I covered that in my own mind when I explained the scheme, but I realise that I should have spelled it out more clearly, which I will now do. Those parts of the scheme are unchanged; these changes do not affect that part of the scheme, but I can certainly answer the noble Baroness’s question.

Where the Secretary of State is considering somebody’s application, they cannot travel. They can travel only once they have authority to enter the United Kingdom. It is not the position that we are refusing their application because we are still considering it; the point is that that passenger should not be trying to travel without a valid authority to travel. In the event that somebody applies for a visa and it is refused, it is open to them to apply to review that decision, internally or by legal proceedings. Of course they are entitled to do that, but people will not, and passengers do not, try to travel while their decision is still being determined because they do not have permission at that point to travel.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The scheme uses language such as:

“Individuals … in relation to whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision that the individual be made subject of an exclusion order”.


That does not seem completely to reflect what the Minister said. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently familiar with scheme-speak.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

This is the reference in paragraph 14(d) of the draft scheme. Clearly, this is not being added by these changes. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the courts have found in favour of decisions to refuse authority to carry where the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision to exclude. Obviously, if a person has made an application and the exclusion order is not made, they are free to travel once they have their visa. It does not have the effect of precluding their travelling; it simply means that they cannot travel on that occasion. If, however, they are the subject of an exclusion order, repeated applications will simply result in the same outcome: they will be refused authority to travel by the carrier.