National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Under this legislation, conduct assisting a designated body is to be a very serious criminal offence, attracting very serious sentences of imprisonment. I am unclear why existing transparency and reporting regimes should not be bolstered by the specific inclusion in this legislation of “assisting in disguising the assets of designated bodies”, and that conduct being designated and criminalised under the Bill. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could give the Committee a further and more detailed explanation of why that should not be the case, and if he would at least promise to give further consideration to specifically including such conduct as assisting a designated body by hiding assets when this is further reviewed in the legislation promised in the King’s Speech, which he has confirmed is forthcoming. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Marks. He has put the case extremely effectively, taking from the amendment tabled by my honourable friend in the other place. Generally speaking, this is an area where there has been much cross-party working by the right honourable Andrew Mitchell, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, my noble friend Lady Kramer, and others. I therefore hope that noble Lords will be helpful in responding to this. The Panama papers, and many other sources, have revealed much information that would already have been in the public domain had beneficial ownership been clearer. Therefore, I hope the Minister will join me in supporting this amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group concern offences relating to the support and assistance of designated bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, has not spoken to his amendments. In this regard, it is worth commenting that these Benches have a lot of sympathy with the principle behind the noble Lord’s amendments—he spoke at Second Reading last week—namely, the fact that a designated body, as a media organ, should not be a potential avenue by which criminals avoid prosecution. It is an issue worthy of consideration. It would be interesting if the Minister could confirm whether the offences proposed by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, would already be captured by the Bill as drafted.

Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would make it an offence to conceal beneficial ownership relating to a designated organisation. Again, we on these Benches support the principle behind this amendment. The use, funnelling or concealment of funds to support a designated body should undoubtedly be an offence that is captured by the Bill, and I hope that the Minister can provide assurances that this will be the case. I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

11: Clause 2, page 4, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to conduct engaged in on behalf of an impartial humanitarian organisation that is necessary to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance or to support other activities that support basic human needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create an exemption from the offence in section 17B of assisting a designated body if the assistance is provided on behalf of an impartial humanitarian organisation.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I will speak also to Amendment 12A, which replaces my original Amendment 12; Amendment 13A, which replaces my original Amendment 13; Amendment 18A, which replaces Amendment 18; Amendment 19A, which replaces Amendment 19; and Amendment 16.

I want to start by acknowledging the huge amount of support and effort that others have put into getting us to where we are now: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with his expertise and understanding, Sarah Champion and those associated with the International Development Committee, the International Committee of the Red Cross, other leading NGOs and others, and, from Friday onwards, the Minister and his team. I think that the poor Minister is probably due a full night’s sleep after all this.

I sympathise with the Government and those who drafted this legislation. I understand why they want to act, but we all know, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, that acting in haste in drafting legislation can have predictable challenges. For me, therefore, the key is to address the unintended consequences of this short Bill, rather than to seek to move particular areas forward. That will need to wait for the longer Bill that we have been promised in the King’s Speech. It could never be acceptable to say that this legislation must go through unamended, when risks were perceived with it, because we were short of time.

I also note the engagement of Jonathan Hall KC, who published a note on receipt of information on 25 June, suggesting a change to the legislation. It is quite something when such a suggestion is made, given that, in theory, this legislation came directly out of his report. I thank him for being willing to address this, and the Government for listening.

Let us set aside whether or not there should have been such a rush, and make sure that by the end of today we have taken forward a Bill in which there is common agreement about intentions and the protection of the British public and state without, at the same time, throwing out babies with bathwater. In fact, I am mightily keen not to throw out babies, but instead to look after them around the world, which is what humanitarian organisations so bravely do, often in the most challenging circumstances.

I am very grateful to those who signed my amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady D’Souza—for their support. We had a clear problem as the legislation stood. No one, including the Government, wishes to prevent bona fide humanitarian organisations, working within international humanitarian law, doing their work, whether that is clearing mines, working on conflict resolution or getting aid to vulnerable people, or to block journalists from digging deep to do their work. The dilemma of engaging with those with whom we might otherwise wish to designate or proscribe is clear to the Government, hence the defence for diplomatic engagement.

The Explanatory Notes state that humanitarian work is not designed to be captured by this Bill. While diplomatic protection is in the Bill, humanitarian work, so far, is not. The factsheet on the Bill, published by the Home Office on 9 June, states:

“Legitimate activity, such as diplomatic and humanitarian engagement and journalistic freedoms are protected in the offences which include relevant defences”.


But actually, no: the intention was clearly there, but it was not translated into the Bill. We need to make sure this is rectified.

Amendment 11 provides an exemption, stating that the new provisions

“do not apply to conduct engaged in on behalf of an impartial humanitarian organisation that is necessary to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance or to support other activities that support basic human needs”.

That is the best route to go down, so that this legislation does not have a chilling effect on those in the humanitarian sector, so they fear to act lest they end up in the courts, or their banks or donors do not want to engage for fear of the law. In Yemen, for example, aid agencies have abandoned entire communities because they are working with groups that were blacklisted by the US Government. This then made it too risky to stay.

Amendments 12A and 13A seek to provide a defence for those carrying out humanitarian activities, making it clear that these must be in keeping with internationally recognised principles and standards applicable to such activities. Amendment 16 would mean that an offence in Section 17C on obtaining material benefits would not apply if the benefit was provided to an impartial humanitarian organisation. It provides an exemption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 22 in the group in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady D’Souza. It touches on the issues that my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich raised in his remarks. I am very pleased with the progress that we have made around humanitarian organisations.

During the Second Reading debate last week, I specifically referred to the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross and said that it would passing strange if the united desire of this House to designate organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be used to impede the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I specifically referred to an amendment to the Bill which it asked should be moved. I tabled it in due course and it is on the Order Paper.

During our very helpful meeting yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, responded to another point that I raised with him and that I had also raised in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Anderson over the weekend concerning the position of journalists. I was struck by representations made by the admirable Alex Crawford from Sky News, who had given evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights during our inquiry into the activities of ISIS. The noble Lord will recall that I have raised with him the failure to prosecute any of the 400 ISIS members who committed genocide against Yazidis in northern Iraq and northern Syria and who have returned to this country. Not one of them has been prosecuted for crimes against humanity or the crime of genocide.

Alex Crawford went into the camps inside Syria and Iraq and very bravely interviewed some of the insurgents who were there, and she came to give evidence to our committee. She asked, “Would that mean, under the terms of this legislation, that I could be prosecuted for working to establish information and knowledge by going in directly to deal with a proscribed organisation?” I would like further clarity, just for the record and to put it beyond doubt, for people such as Alex Crawford, Lyse Doucet or many others. Last week, I referred to Kate Adie, who stood in Tiananmen Square at the time of the massacres that occurred there. Would someone like that also be placing themselves at risk under the legislation? Let us put that beyond doubt. I know that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. During our discussions yesterday, I felt that we made very significant progress in dealing with that.

I will just briefly refer to the position of the IRGC. This is not just about NGOs. The IRGC, as we all know, has to do some very delicate, sensitive and confidential work, sometimes engaging directly in places where there are organisations that we have proscribed or that we will, in the future, designate. Much of this can be funded by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Geneva conventions, and this can include the provision of medical care of the wounded and sick. So, the idea that this could proscribe such groups solely to secure humanitarian access to civilian populations and detain persons—

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord means the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I do indeed—there are too many acronyms flying around at the moment, and it is rather late in the day. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that we focus on the matter in hand, what the Government are seeking to do, making sure there are no unintended consequences and taking this forward. I hear the concern from the Conservative Front Bench, but I hope that they are able to see the bigger picture of what this was about and what we were seeking to do, which was not party-political in any way. It was simply to try to remedy some defects that we saw. We are grateful that the Government were able to hear that. It was something that was echoed by a number of organisations and lots of experts helping us in this regard. I am glad that in the end that was heard and therefore we have a better, safer Bill without those defects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

12A: Clause 2, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(e) for the purpose of carrying out humanitarian activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with others in the name of Baroness Northover, provides a defence to the section 17B prohibition for the provision of humanitarian activities in accordance with internationally recognised principles and standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

13A: Clause 2, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“(7A) For the purposes of subsection (6)(e), the reference to the carrying out of humanitarian activities does not include the carrying out of humanitarian activities in contravention of internationally recognised principles and standards applicable to the carrying out of humanitarian activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with others in the name of Baroness Northover, provides a defence to the section 17B prohibition for the provision of humanitarian activities in accordance with internationally recognised principles and standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

18A: Clause 2, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(d) for the purpose of carrying out humanitarian activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with others in the name of Baroness Northover, provides a defence to the section 17C prohibition for the provision of humanitarian activities in accordance with internationally recognised principles and standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

19A: Clause 2, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(9A) For the purposes of subsection (8)(d), the reference to the carrying out of humanitarian activities does not include the carrying out of humanitarian activities in contravention of internationally recognised principles and standards applicable to the carrying out of humanitarian activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with others in the name of Baroness Northover, provides a defence to the section 17C prohibition for the provision of humanitarian activities in accordance with internationally recognised principles and standards.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, national security is, of course, a fundamental responsibility of government. We all recognise that the nature of security threats has changed significantly. We know that we need to step up our military preparedness, but we now also increasingly face challenges such as cyber attacks, foreign interference in democratic processes and indirect covert operations. We need not only to build national resilience but to tackle such threats and others as they evolve. We all share that aim.

Jonathan Hall KC was asked to identify gaps in our legislation, and the Government aim to tackle some of these in this fast-track Bill. The Government have had over a year in which to address these gaps, yet they came forward with this Bill only in the past few weeks and expect it to be rushed through Parliament. That is rarely a recipe for good legislation, so it is vital that we examine it carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—a concern that many noble Lords have already flagged.

As I read the Bill, I wondered whether some of the people potentially implicated in recent attacks would be covered; the Bill covers those who would or should know for whom they might be working. There is a new development whereby young men in particular are being recruited online for tempting cash payments to take photos of venues or even to carry out attacks. They never think that foreign state involvement might lie behind these activities. Some have termed these actors “useful idiots”. In some ways, they are similar to drug mules, as the consequences of their actions—and the question of who is asking them to do things—are far from their minds, as their focus is simply the financial reward. Will such so-called useful idiots be caught by this legislation? We know the use of such proxies is increasing, giving deniability.

Then there are other areas where people may be inadvertently included. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has decimated the Government’s current response on humanitarian work. I am very glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is listening to this debate.

The chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion, has urged the Home Secretary to amend the Bill over concerns that it has negative implications for humanitarian organisations. The IDC wants to see

“an express humanitarian exemption making clear that offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations acting in accordance with international humanitarian law”.

The IDC points out:

“Humanitarian organisations often operate in areas where state-linked actors exercise territorial control. In such contexts, engagement with all parties to a conflict may be necessary to secure access to affected populations, obtain security guarantees, maintain staff safety, and deliver life-saving assistance”.


The committee also notes that

“the Bill creates offences of supporting a designated body, assisting a designated body, and obtaining or accepting material benefits from a designated body”.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, notes that simply getting information on where landmines might have been laid could fall foul of this legislation.

The Minister in the Commons stressed that the offences are not intended to criminalise conduct relating to humanitarian assistance, but as my colleague in the Commons, Monica Harding, noted, although safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, they are not in the Bill itself. Bond, the Halo Trust, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others argue that there is a risk here that this may have, at the very least, a chilling effect on their work. Among other challenges, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, noted, broadly framed offences may lead banks, suppliers, donors and others to refuse to assist, as they do not want to take on the risk.

I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said about the defence used by NGOs in court, but the last thing that they wish to do is end up in an expensive court case. They will seek to avoid that by avoiding the work. I also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about them not being prosecuted, but they are likely to try to avoid that risk, so they will not undertake that work.

I understand the reaction of the Minister in the Commons—that the Government do not want an exclusion to be exploited by malign actors. The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, referred to that. However, there are diplomatic exclusions in the Bill, so there are ways of doing that. Therefore, I hope that the Government are giving thought to how they could amend the Bill, to make sure that humanitarian organisations are equally and explicitly protected. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, a Pepper v Hart statement would be useful, but will NGOs know the significance of that or even look at our debates, which is where they would have to pick up the references to a Pepper v Hart protection? An amendment would be much safer.

To return to the challenge of drawing up legislation in a rush, however worthy the aim, I was struck by what Alicia Kearns said in the Commons:

“We must not write a law for the IRGC alone. We are writing a law for every hostile state organ that comes after it, and the next may look nothing like the last”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/26; col. 870.]


I am also puzzled that—and Alicia Kearns pointed this out—under the Bill, unlike other terrorism legislation, people cannot be charged until they have committed an act, rather than when they are planning such an act. The noble Lord on the Conservative Benches made reference to this. Is there a reason for this, and if it is inadvertent, will it be addressed?

As we did in the Commons and as my noble friends have emphasised here, we support the intentions of the Bill; we recognise that we face attacks by state-sponsored and state-linked actors who actively seek to undermine our democracy. This is now widespread across the democratic world, where Russia, for example, wishes to create instability in the UK, across the EU and NATO, and beyond. Just look at its recent actions in the various elections in Romania, Moldova, Armenia, and Hungary. Threats to the UK from foreign states are indeed evolving rapidly. With people receiving their news via social media, and social media platforms amplifying division and disagreement, this is likely only to intensify.

As we are asked to fast-track the Bill, it is important that we look at its potential limitations. I am glad that the Minister says he is willing to work across the House to address these concerns, and I hope that we can therefore get robust legislation on the statute book and that he really means what he says about working with us to try to resolve some of these problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am happy to do that, but I want to give clarity on these matters. If the noble Lord will allow me, given that that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that and share that with both Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of that. I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect, on these matters.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

When is the Minister intending to meet the Red Cross?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Life and diaries are fluid, but it will be before Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill next week. So it will not be after that. It will be before that. As we speak, representations and diaries are being co-ordinated. I will leave it at that.

The sixth vital point, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, is the issue of whether there will be a review. That is a valid and significant point but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the National Security Act 2023 already gives the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation the right to oversight and mandates them to carry out an annual review of the operations of the provisions of the Bill. I hope that is sufficient to head off at the pass an amendment on this issue, not because an amendment would be right or wrong or unnecessary but because the Bill is already covered by the National Security Act on those particular points.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, mentioned in passing the question whether the offence of assisting a designated body would not capture non-UK nationals. I say to him that a non-UK national planning an attack in the UK from overseas would be materially assisting activities taking place in the UK. It is the activities of the designated body, such as an attack in the UK, that determine whether assistance is captured. The Bill also introduces the designated body condition, which allows the existing National Security Act offences to apply to activity linked to designated bodies, not just to foreign states.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, continues, correctly, to chew at my ankles about the issue of transnational repression. I would argue that the Bill will make it easier to achieve prosecutions where there is a designated body, such as a proxy organisation, involved in transnational repression. We will continue, as I said yesterday in our Statement, to try to tackle transnational repression in a number of ways.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I am honoured, as ever, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who has made a very passionate case. Many speakers today have focused on the legality and morality, or otherwise, of the Rwanda scheme, and the astonishing claim that this Parliament has the overriding ability to decide whether Rwanda is safe. I will focus on another astonishing aspect: the simple unsuitability of this scheme.

Last July, I was in Rwanda for a major conference on women’s rights. While I was there, I visited, with the UNFPA, the Mahama refugee camp in eastern Rwanda. Overseen by the UNHCR, this houses 60,000 refugees, largely from Burundi, but also from other countries in the region which have been suffering conflict. There are strong cultural similarities between the refugees and their hosts. Full provision is made for housing, schools, and training. There are villages led by local leaders, markets for stallholders, and a bus service to enable travel to work. We visited impressive health clinics, which covered a range of care, including minor operations, vaccinations, malnutrition care and mental health services. What is more, the local population can access these facilities, so they can see a benefit from having refugees among them.

Let us contrast this with what the UK plans to do for those seeking assistance at our borders. None of these elements is in place. It is no surprise that the Government do not want parliamentarians to visit the site, as we found. It is beyond amateur. It is in Kigali, in an unused housing development, surrounded by other housing developments for the local population. Its capacity is extremely limited, for merely a few hundred, and these will supposedly be men from diverse countries, backgrounds, languages, religions and experience—people who will have been uprooted from their countries, communities and families. How is that supposed to work? Of course, the site is not big enough to provide specialised healthcare, training, or language or cultural support—any of the facilities that such asylum seekers potentially need. It is right in the middle of the local population, with the strong possibility of mutual fear—a potential recipe for conflict and exploitation.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee refrained from speaking today because of the number of speakers, but she has mentioned to me points made by various organisations. Removing asylum seekers to a country where they do not want to be, with little prospect of work, not understanding the language, with inadequate support, increases the likelihood that they will seek to leave, or be open to offers to help them do so. Israel had an agreement with Rwanda, but no one knows what happened to that cohort. They are not there now; it is very likely that they were smuggled onwards or trafficked and exploited. The Minister says that he seeks to reduce trafficking, yet this policy opens up a new market for traffickers. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has advised that the Bill will put the UK in breach of the convention on trafficking in human beings.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have rightly said, Rwanda has made great strides since the terrible years of its genocide. Nevertheless, the UK Supreme Court has deemed it still an unsafe country—and we have heard a number of reasons why that is the case, not least from the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. We have recently granted asylum to Rwandan refugees, as my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out. Of course, it appears to be part of the Government’s narrative for the right-wing press that Rwanda is a desperate place in which to end up—acting as an apparent disincentive to those who may seek asylum in the UK. It is ironic that they then deem the country safe.

Conflict and climate change will doubtless increase migration. Working on global strategies to tackle this, as the most reverend Primate Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out, is clearly vital. Right now in central America, they are facing a massive traffic in migration. Costa Rica, with a population of 5 million, is housing a further 1 million from Nicaragua. One of the first things must be to invest in conflict prevention and development. The assistance that has been channelled to Rwanda since its terrible conflict has clearly improved the lives of many of its citizens, so there is less migration from Rwanda itself, despite the clear limits to freedom there. Yet we cut our aid budget—how short-sighted.

Others have argued with overwhelming force that the Bill offends against both morality and legality. From what I have seen of the UK’s plan on the ground in Rwanda, compared with more effective ways of supporting refugees in that very country, it seems to me that we are pouring huge amounts of money into what is almost an amateur scheme. That hardly reflects well on the United Kingdom.

Pakistan: Afghans Eligible for Resettlement in UK

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of Afghan nationals eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, who are currently in Pakistan and at risk of repatriation to Afghanistan.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, Afghans in third countries, including Pakistan, who are eligible for resettlement to the UK continue to be supported by the UK Government, and flights from Pakistan to the UK continue to take place. The assessment of the number of individuals currently awaiting resettlement from Afghanistan and other third countries such as Pakistan is not available at this time as it is operational information and changes on a regular basis.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My noble friend has submitted a series of Questions to find out what is happening to the Afghans in Afghanistan, and those who fled to Pakistan, who are eligible to come to the UK. The Answers—and I have looked at them all—have come variously from the Home Office, the MoD and the FCDO, and they are all opaque, as was the Minister’s Answer. Does this not illustrate the challenges these vulnerable people face, as well as those who are seeking to help them? His own Answer to my noble friend spoke of action “over the coming years”. Does that seem sufficiently urgent, given the danger that those who assisted the United Kingdom during our time in Afghanistan now find themselves in?

Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present these draft regulations to the Committee. This instrument amends existing regulations that relate to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which I shall call the sanctions Act. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will first set out some background to sanctions, in particular the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.

The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with it. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status; subject to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention of 1951, they cannot enter or remain here.

The 2020 regulations provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are then exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.

Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the Immigration Rules, they benefit from a similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore now in the perverse situation where someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protections than someone who is not.

I turn to the purpose of these regulations, which is to align the approach and correct this anomaly. The Government have considered how to address this and concluded that it is right that, when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act, people lawfully in the UK are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered.

However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. These regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend this instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation and for the Explanatory Memorandum. It is clearly important that the two processes—whether or not someone is eligible to have their immigration status accepted and whether or not they are subject to a sanction—should be kept separate. Can the Minister tell us whether there have already been any cases where these have become entangled? Why was this not picked up when the sanctions legislation went through the House? I recall our debates on that and do not remember this being flagged, although I remember that we had to sort out quite a number of inadvertent challenges in that legislation.

The Home Office states that this draft SI would “address a discrepancy” whereby provisions designed to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations, which the noble Lord has laid out, put people subject to an immigration sanction “in a better position” than people making human rights or protection claims under existing immigration rules. Once more, as with the other SIs this afternoon, that is a very interesting use of language: a discrepancy being in effect a mistake.

Again, I express my sympathy with officials, because of course these things happen. When departments have to shift away from their main aims at the same time as unscrambling legislation from our EU membership over 40 years, it is not surprising that this happens. I express sympathy with the officials who have had to deal with it, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, did in debates on the previous SIs.

I note that we have four officials here, who otherwise could be working on more substantial matters. I ask again, as I did in the previous debate: if we need such an SI to be processed with the manpower that we have here, how many more would we have to deal with if we removed the amount of secondary legislation that the Government propose and then had to sort out all the discrepancies that might creep in as a result? Given that 40 years would have to be unscrambled in the space of about a year, does he not think that that is rather unwise? There is nothing about leaving the EU which necessitates that, regardless of what his colleague implied. The Minister may have in his notes that same line as the rebuttal.

Leaving the EU is one thing but chucking out babies with bathwater when you do not intend to is clearly another. It happens so easily, as we can see from all these SIs this afternoon—all these discrepancies. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. This particular SI seems straightforward and we support it, but I look forward to his wider response.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for introducing the SI, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her remarks and comments. I will spend a couple of minutes setting out some background, because this is an important SI that puts right a discrepancy. Some background and some reflection on this order will be important for those who read our proceedings.

The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 provided for an autonomous UK sanctions regime following our departure from the EU. Part of that sanctions regime included travel bans, which exclude a person from entering or remaining in the UK. The vast majority of travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and who have no connection with the UK.

In a small number of cases where a travel ban is served on a person already in the UK, it impacts their immigration status; it cancels their permission to be in the UK and makes them liable for removal. A person can appeal that decision by submitting a human rights or protection claim, in line with our obligations under the ECHR and the refugee convention—again, the Minister pointed that out.

The original SI, which this one amends, made it clear how those appeal procedures would work by clarifying which court or tribunal would hear them. We supported that original SI; the use of sanctions against people who have committed some truly appalling crimes is absolutely vital but must rightly be reflected in line with our obligations under the ECHR and our commitment to the refugee convention. The previous SI provided clarity on how those cases—which were likely to be very rare—would be heard, and the SI was welcomed across the parties.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government have now noticed a discrepancy, which this amending SI addresses. If a person is subject to an immigration sanction—a travel ban—the effects of the sanction do not kick in until any human rights or protection claim has been concluded. This means that a person under the sanction keeps their immigration status and can travel in and out of the UK during that time.

Conversely, if a person who is not subject to an immigration sanction—a travel ban—is appealing an immigration decision on human rights or protection grounds, that appeal can be treated as withdrawn if that person leaves the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this means that a person subject to an immigration sanction is therefore in a better position than those who are not subject to a sanction and are appealing a decision under the Immigration Rules. The order would provide that the effects of an immigration sanction come into effect if a sanctioned person leaves the UK to bring them into line with existing provisions for those not subject to a sanction.

Whenever we have discussed this set of circumstances where a person who is already in the UK is made subject to a travel ban, we have noted that these cases are likely to be very low in number, as most immigration sanctions are imposed on individuals who are outside of the UK and do not have UK connections. Is the Minister able to give an indication of how often a travel ban has been made against a person who is already in the UK since the introduction of our own UK sanctions regime following the passage of the Bill in 2018?

Today’s SI seeks to amend a discrepancy, where someone subject to a sanction may be in a more advantageous position than someone who is not subject to a sanction but is appealing an immigration decision on human rights grounds under the Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, alluded to this and asked various questions. I would like to ask when this discrepancy was first noticed and how it came to light. Is it currently—I assume the answer is yes—made clear to a person appealing a decision on human rights or protection grounds that their appeal may be withdrawn if they leave the UK?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is clear from the Minister’s introduction that she knows how damaging the Bill is. The Government deploy a circular argument. They say they are delivering on the referendum result, and that immigration was a factor in that result, as if members of the Government had not been the ones who helped persuade the British public that leaving the EU was a good idea, and that there were risks of huge increases in immigration if we did not.

We have been clapping for NHS, social care and other essential staff. The Government are belatedly realising how important they are. It is specious for the Government now to say what they are saying about pay in the social care sector when they have not addressed it in funding. What will they say when those helping to underpin, for example, our virtual system, leave? Will they say that they just did not know? There are so many others in so many other sectors, from agriculture to warehouse distribution. We depend on the City of London for the tax revenues required for the NHS and social care, let alone the so-called levelling up of the north. Yet here the City of London is undermined.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, with things likely to get worse this winter. We choose this moment to fail to secure a deal with the EU that keeps us in the customs union and the single market, or any but the most basic of arrangements, further damaging our better businesses. Then we make it worse by introducing this immigration system into an economy which, prior to coronavirus, had record levels of employment. The Bill gives business totally inadequate time to prepare. Why is so much in secondary legislation, which is so difficult to scrutinise? It shows how unprepared the Government are that they are seeking to do it this way. They are beginning to realise the unintended consequences of their system.

The Chancellor said that he was not driven by ideology. He has recognised the support required for our economy. If only his colleagues in the Home Office could be as pragmatic, and spend their time protecting the country from the effects of that referendum. The proposed new system is deeply damaging to Britain, to the British economy and to those whom the Government say they wish to help.

Hamas

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord is saying. However, it is government policy not to provide a running commentary on any proscribed organisation.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, as Britain was a signatory of the Balfour Declaration, and as the Government support a two-state solution, does the Minister think the time has come to recognise the state of Palestine, as more than 130 other countries have done?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as we approach the centenary we are conscious of the sensitivities that many people have about the declaration and the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish community in Palestine. We also recognise the continued impediment of the occupation towards securing political rights. We are clear that we want to see the creation of a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.

Gender Pay Gap

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is right to point that out. Five years ago we came to this issue almost from a standing start: the representation of both women and BME people on boards was pitiful. We have a long way to go on BME representation, but in those five years we got from a very low figure to more than 26% of women on boards. However, we have further to go.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it would be a useful discipline to impose quotas for the number of women on boards if further progress is not made? Do the current Prime Minister and Government agree that this would be a useful backstop?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I remember the previous Prime Minister saying this. One of his key strengths was trying to achieve things without having to legislate, and we succeeded on the issue of women on boards. The current Prime Minister very much supports the diversity of both BME people and women on boards, and the regulations we have laid underpin the strength of feeling on this subject.

Asylum: Sexual Orientation

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and of course, in addition to that not being a bar, the persecution of that particular social group is one of the reasons why they might be granted asylum under the Geneva Convention. The UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group is a member of the national asylum stakeholders group, to which we referred earlier, so I absolutely endorse what the noble Lord said.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether DfID is still taking forward the protection and support of LGBT groups—a plan that was of course devised by my former colleague Lynne Featherstone, and if he does not have the answer, could he write to let us know?

[Lord Bates]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in her role as a DfID Minister. We continue to work through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and public diplomacy to try to ensure that discrimination of that nature is tackled at source. I will look into the projects she referred to, but perhaps we can compare notes to ensure that we are looking at the right ones. However, I will be happy to look into them and ensure that they continue to receive funding.

UK Border Agency

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

May I remind noble Lords we are in a time-limited debate with a couple more debates to follow.