Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Kevin Foster and Michael Fabricant(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Kevin Foster)
I thank my hon. Friend. His invitation sounded so wonderful that I, as the Rail Minister, insisted on coming to the Dispatch Box to accept it. I do note that the proposed scheme was previously unsuccessful under the restoring your railway programme, but I am happy to continue working with him to explore opportunities to improve the rail transport offer in this area.
Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres
Debate between Kevin Foster and Michael Fabricant(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Foster
The simple answer is no. They will usually be done in date order, unless there are particular compelling and compassionate circumstances. Given the nature of the situation that people have left in Ukraine and eastern Poland, in many ways virtually all applications have compelling and compassionate circumstances. We do not order applications based on how close a relative they are. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the list of relatives we will accept is quite extensive. In addition, if someone was for example a godparent, that would not qualify under the family scheme, but we would look to see whether it could be transferred into the Homes for Ukraine scheme and whether the person concerned could act as a sponsor for the individual instead.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
After what happened in Salisbury, I urge my hon. Friend not to take the rather reckless advice of the SNP. Due to the fog of war, there undoubtedly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is trying to intervene on me, but he is reckless in his suggestion, and after Salisbury—[Interruption.].
Michael Fabricant
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Undoubtedly, due to the fog of war, there were long delays, and still are in some instances. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to thank the people in the Home Office who have been working very hard of late. The Lichfield constituents are very generous and want to house Ukrainians. I and my staff have been dealing with numerous cases, most of which are now resolved. I thank the people of Lichfield and I thank particularly Home Office officials, who have been working almost a 24-hour day to resolve this.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I know the team who have been working on these schemes will very much appreciate what he has just said. As we have touched on several times, nearly 90,000 visas have now been issued and we are seeing significant numbers of people arriving in the UK. That is a tribute not only to the generosity of spirit of people such as those in Lichfield who are looking to host families and provide what support they can, but to those teams that have worked to stand up the scheme. It is worth noting that the British national overseas passports scheme was over about one year and dealt with 100,000 people. This has been 90,000 within a matter of weeks.
Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022
Debate between Kevin Foster and Michael Fabricant(2 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the points raised by hon. Members. As has been said, we have not appealed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In response to the SNP spokesperson, we felt it better to engage with the issues and seek to resolve some of the concerns. I understand the point about why not address all of the concerns in primary legislation but we felt that given concerns to do with data-processing, primary legislation raises certain issues, whereas published guidance is available, and in fact we have already published in draft and we have received comments. We expect that to be an evolving document. Of course, there would be an issue had we decided to issue private guidance, and questions would be asked about whether we were trying to avoid scrutiny.
We expect the published guidance to balance the need to give individuals access to information where appropriate and, for the sake of argument, not requiring the need to inform someone that we are taking immigration enforcement action or the details on what intelligence we may or may not have on activities, particularly on those who may be involved in potential criminal activity. Although we recognise that there is a crime exemption, we believe that there are circumstances where we need a specific immigration exemption as well, rather than try to extend the criminal exemption to cover immigration. Hence the action we have taken.
We believe that the regulations meet the objectives that were set out in the judgment. We appreciate that there will always be those who take a different view, and there will always be opportunity for oversight from the ICO and judicial oversight. We cannot change the regulations at will if that then undermined the purpose of the core legislation. We believe the regulations represent a positive step forward that will resolve the core concerns. In particular, it is made very clear that their use is restricted to the Secretary of State, given that the purpose is to maintain effective immigration control, not to give an excuse to third parties to try to withhold data that should be released. That core point has been raised by many, but we should be clear that the exercise of the power lies with the Home Secretary in terms of defence of the immigration system, and not with a landlord or agent who may seek to argue the exemption when required to declare information.
We believe that the regulations are the appropriate step forward. We recognise that we are responding to a court judgment, but we did not seek to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court because we thought that the points made in the judgment were reasonable and ones that we could accept. I repeat that the document will be an evolving one.
Michael Fabricant
A very brief one, indeed. Is my hon. Friend confident then that there will not be another appeal? My hon. Friend would then be back here again coming up with another amendment. Does the SI actually meet the requirements of the court and the judgment?
Kevin Foster
We believe that it does. I can never guarantee that someone will not take legal action against the Home Office. The campaigners won and it would have been the Home Office that would look to appeal to the Supreme Court. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South noted, we decided not to appeal but to engage with the judgment and introduce additional safeguards instead. The principle of having this type of legislative exemption was deemed to be perfectly rational, but it was felt that there was a need to be clearer and to have certain published safeguards on its use.
Given some of the data-sharing arrangements with the European Union on adequacy arrangements and the carve up it applied, we have engaged with the European Commission, and we are confident about our policy. Can I guarantee that no one will launch a legal challenge against the Home Office in future? No. We live in a country where people are able to do that. I have set out the purpose of the regulations, however, and the need for them. As I said, this is not about taking away anyone’s rights or weakening any protections on data access, rather the regulations are designed to strengthen those protections and to produce a living document that can respond to emerging issues and trends, and can be amended where appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.