Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the draft Rules laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Passports: Strike Action and Voter ID
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the effect of strike action in April on passport applications and (2) what steps they will take to ensure that those with delayed applications will not be prevented from voting in elections on 4 May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Passport Office is working to manage the impact of the strike action. We have comprehensive contingency plans. There are currently no plans to change the published processing times for passports in response to the proposed strike action.
A passport is only one form of identification which is acceptable for voting purposes. The full list can be found on the government website. The public do not need a passport to be able to vote. This strike action should not have any impact on people being able to vote in May.
Lord Rennard (LD)
The current 10-week delay in passport applications is frustrating for travellers. The five-week strike will cause further problems. It will also reduce the number of people who have one of the specified forms of photo ID to let them vote if they have elections on 4 May. The uptake of local authority voter ID cards has been pathetic. During debates on the then Elections Bill, Ministers referred frequently to the Post Office’s ID requirements for collecting a parcel. Will the Government now consider allowing the forms of ID that are accepted by the Post Office, including bank cards or utility bills, to be used for voting, or are they really trying to suppress the vote?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord asked two questions. First, in relation to the Passport Office, the department remains confident that the 10-week service standard for the return of passports will continue to be met. As the Minister with superintendence of the Passport Office, I have been very proud of the work that it and its excellent staff have done in recovering from the massive surge in applications which followed the Covid pandemic. The Passport Office remains fully resourced, following a significant increase of more than 1,200 staff between April 2021 and last summer. Last week, 99.6% of standard UK passport applications were processed within 10 weeks. More than 2.2 million applications have been processed in 2023.
I turn to the issue in relation to voting. As I have already said, a passport is only one form of ID which is acceptable for voting purposes. Expired forms of identification will be accepted, as long as the photograph is a good enough likeness. We estimate that around 80% of the eligible voting population hold a valid UK passport. This increases to around 85% when those whose passport has recently expired are included. On the basis that such a high proportion of voters hold a valid or recently expired passport, we do not plan to change our processing times. As the noble Lord has observed, anyone eligible to vote who does not have an acceptable form of photographic identification can apply for a free voter authority certificate.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, we know that voter ID fraud among those who vote at polling stations is absolutely minimal. It is extremely likely that, even if people have photo ID, they will not remember to take it to the polling station when they go to vote. There will therefore be a considerable number of people who do not vote in elections if the Government stick to their requirement that everyone turns up at the polling station with photo ID. Will the Government therefore withdraw their photo ID requirement for people voting at polling stations?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness. This Parliament has passed an Act to require people to present voter identification and that is what will happen.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
There is a simple failsafe. It is really important that people can vote and, having sent off their passport, they might not think that they will need it. But every time the Passport Office receives an application, it sends an email that says, “We’ve safely got your passport”. Attached to that email could be a little notification saying, “If you’re relying on this as your ID for voting, please make sure that you have one of these other forms”—or it could signpost them to the free voter certificate, which would kitchen-sink this so they can vote.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. Great efforts are made to advertise the availability of the voter authority certificate. Anyone concerned that a document that they intend to use will not be available by polling day may also apply to appoint a proxy up to 5 pm on polling day itself—so considerable steps have been taken to address my noble friend’s point.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has come up with a very practical solution to this potential problem. Can the noble Lord undertake to the House and the noble Baroness that he will look at her suggestion and come up with a more considered answer?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly indicate that careful consideration is given to these issues. As always, we will consider all the recommendations and advice given to this House, including from my noble friend.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should we remind ourselves that photographic evidence has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland for many years and that the system there has worked extremely well?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who is of course correct that paper identification has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland since it was introduced in 1985, and photo identification since 2003, when it was introduced by the last Labour Government. It has proven to be highly effective at stopping fraud and preventing the crime of stealing someone’s vote.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I will add to the last question and publicly commend the Passport Office—or certainly one unit within it, the international section—for providing an absolutely exemplary service. Would the Minister care to add to my positive remarks?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am incredibly grateful to the noble Viscount for his comment, which I will pass on. I am always very impressed by the Passport Office staff. Their work to turn around delivery times has been exemplary across the Civil Service, and it is most regrettable that the action taken by the PCS will imperil this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this delay in passport applications will undoubtedly lead to some people not having the relevant voter ID available to them on the day in order to vote. Another uncertainty is being put in front of potential voters. The Minister has been saying that people can apply for local authority voter identification, so I will give him some figures to show how minimal that is. In my council area of Kirklees—I have relevant interests—there are an estimated 4,000 voters who will need voter ID from the local authority. There have been 278 applications to date, many of which have been returned for lack of a good-quality photo. What are the Government going to do to make sure that every voter who turns up on 4 May can cast their vote?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I believe that I have already answered that question a number of times in the course of proceedings in this House and I will not repeat it again.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is not only passports that are registered as a document of note for voting? Many documents other than passports are approved. Would he care to run through them?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend; he is indeed correct. Some 20 forms of identity document would suffice including: a passport—needless to say—issued by the UK, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, any British Overseas Territory, an EEA state or Commonwealth country; a national identity card issued by an EEA state; a driving licence; a blue badge; an older person’s or disabled person’s bus pass; an Oyster 60+ card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom; a Freedom Pass; a Scottish national entitlement card; a Welsh concessionary travel card for those aged 60 and over or disabled people; a senior, registered blind, blind person’s, war disablement, 60+ or half-fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland; or an identity card bearing a proof of age standard. I do not think I need to carry on.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister say why the young person’s bus pass and railcard was not on there?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Plainly, that was an issue that the noble Lord should have raised—and no doubt did raise—during the debate on the Elections Bill. It is quite a long way from the topic of this Question, which is about the strikes by the PCS.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister, having gone through that extensive list, say whether the department has made any estimate of how many people do not have any of the forms of documentation that he listed?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, of course, elections fall within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities rather than the Home Office, but I am delighted to make that inquiry and write to him, and deposit the answer in the Library of the House.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is the Minister aware of the different political culture in Northern Ireland, and the fact that in the 1983 general election there were clear justifications for the introduction of some form of ID? There has been no such justification in Great Britain. The returning officer for Northern Ireland said that, after the introduction, it took at least 10 years for turnout levels to return to their previous levels, as a result of the introduction of ID. The Minister read a list; as a canvasser, I would not be able to read out that list to everyone on the doorstep—but the Post Office list is a very good list and it would extend the right to vote to many more people.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I do not accept that there is no need for the voter identification provisions. In any event, as I say, those matters have been approved by the other place and by this House—so that, I am afraid, is that.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister what he is doing, what the Government think and what assessment they have made about postal votes, because they are not monitored in the same way and ID does not have to be produced in the same way? Voter fraud instances have been higher in postal votes than they ever have for people voting in person.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that this question, too, is an awfully long way from the Private Notice Question in relation to the action taken in the Passport Office. As to forms of identity for voting in person at polling stations, if the noble Baroness wishes to put a Question about postal voting, she can put it to the relevant Minister in DLUHC.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, like many in this House, I am registered to vote in two places. I have had no information from either local authority about the need for voter ID yet. It is only a number of weeks before the election; at what point are people going to be informed by local authorities of both the need for voter ID and the ability to apply for a local authority voting card?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord is perhaps fortunate in that I received notice last week, together with my council tax bill for the coming year. I understand that that is fairly wide practice.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
Is the Minister prepared to instruct those conducting elections to monitor those people who have been refused the right to vote, and publish those figures?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, that is not a Home Office issue, so I am afraid that the answer is no: I have not given that instruction. No doubt the noble Lord can make inquiries of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
European citizens are, I guess, allowed to vote in these circumstances, and they only have European documents. The Government may wish for these to be added to that already extensive list.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, indeed; the noble Viscount is right. EU and EEA passports and identity cards are valid.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
The noble Lord asked me to write to him because my question was not apparently pertinent to the Question on the Order Paper. Could he confirm that he speaks for the Government?
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny 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 Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for those two considered contributions. I obviously appreciate the strength of feeling about deprivation of citizenship, but perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I repeat what I said earlier: maintaining our national security is the priority for the Government. It is vitally important that we are still able to take deprivation action, even if we do not know where a person is, to protect the public and keep our country safe. This instrument brings us closer to being able to do that, but let me explain the type of case we envisaged being covered by the new process of referral to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Imagine someone who has been spying for another country against the UK and is now living at an unknown address in that other country; or the head of an organised crime group whose current whereabouts are known only through a police informant, and to use the address would put the life of that informant at risk; or a supporter of Daesh who has committed terrorist attacks and is hiding in the mountains of Syria. Such people pose a direct threat to the safety and security of the UK, and it simply cannot be right that our hands are tied because we cannot take away their British citizenship without giving them notice of the decision. Of course, depriving a person of the privilege of being British is a very significant thing to do. That is why the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 provides for judicial oversight of such decisions.
I will now take the opportunity briefly to address the additional points raised. I turn first to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was asked initially to confirm whether the powers would be used in a narrow and proportionate way. That is certainly my understanding. The application of deprivation powers is clearly a serious use of state power and will be done only in cases which warrant that significant step. I was then asked about reporting. I imagine that the reference there was to reporting statistics in relation to deprivation. Some statistics are certainly provided but, for obvious national security reasons, detailed statistics cannot be. The Government take very seriously their obligations to keep these matters under review.
I was asked specifically whether the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation was consulted in respect of this measure. I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question to hand. I imagine that there has been some engagement with this legislation, but I will of course find out and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that question.
I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. His first was on whether, in the rules, the phrase “Secretary of State” referred to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I think that phrase is subject generally to the definition in the Interpretation Act: that it applies to any of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. But in practical terms, I certainly understand that the power will be exercised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
I was then asked as to the extent to which the existence of the proceedings should be made public. The view is taken that these proceedings are generally, for reasons of national security, best done in a closed environment and, we would suggest, best done on the papers. In the circumstances of an application to commence proceedings without giving notice, the Home Office is the only party to proceedings and, given that this is about the administrative process of giving notice, it is unnecessary to have an open hearing with several judges. The individual will not be aware of the deprivation decision at this point and will not be in a position to give legal direction. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission will determine whether the Secretary of State’s decision not to give notice is “obviously flawed”, in line with judicial review principles. I hope that answers the next question which the noble Lord asked me, which was, “What is obviously flawed?”. It is something that would be upset on judicial review for being unlawful in the public law sense, so when it would be unreasonable or unlawful.
I was asked whether legal aid will be available. Obviously, in the case of no notification, it is hard to envisage a situation, given the lack of co-operation of the other party, where legal aid would be appropriate. But certainly, in principle, in relation to deprivation proceedings, legal aid is available and there are no plans to alter that.
As to the right of appeal, obviously, SIAC itself is an appellate body, in that one is appealing against or challenging a decision of the Secretary of State. Further appeals under SIAC are possible under the procedure rules; indeed, we have seen in various recent cases the involvement of the Court of Appeal.
I was asked about the time for making a determination described in Regulation 7, at new paragraph 25E of the rules, the provision that
“The Commission must determine the application no later than 14 days after”
receipt of the application. That period was agreed with the chair of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as it was suggested that it was an appropriate time for the chair to consider that application, balanced against the potential urgency. Of course, the only question the chair is considering there is whether it is appropriate for notice to be served—that is, whether the Secretary of State’s application should succeed.
I turn to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in respect of Rule 25B set out in Regulation 7 and, in particular, the question of the meaning of Rule 25B(3). If the Secretary of State has the information listed, it must be provided, but if the Secretary of State does not have it, the Secretary of State does not have to provide it, and that does not prevent an application going ahead. Ultimately, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will decide whether it has sufficient information to decide the application. Clearly, if it decides that it does not have adequate information, it will refuse the application.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I understood the Minister correctly, he just said that if the Secretary of State does not know the information, the Secretary of State does not have to provide it to SIAC, but the Secretary of State is applying to SIAC for a deprivation of citizenship. How can you deprive it if you do not know what it is?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
This is the application process to proceed without serving notice. The Secretary of State may know, for example, the person’s name, the person’s nationality or nationalities and the relevant Home Office reference, but not the person’s correct date of birth. As I understand the operation of sub-paragraph (3), that means that the absence of that one particular, given that the Secretary of State does not know it, does not invalidate the application.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was not asking about date of birth, was I? I was asking about where the Secretary of State does not know the nationality. I appreciate the case where you do not know all of the name, and so on—but it seems to me pretty key, if you are starting the process to deprive someone of citizenship but you do not know what their nationality is.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is clearly right—this comes back to another question I was going to deal with in a moment—that the power can be exercised only in cases of persons entitled to more than one nationality. The question is whether the department knows of an entitlement to British nationality and an entitlement to another nationality. If there are other potential nationality entitlements, it may be that, if those are not known, their absence from the application will not of itself invalidate the application. That is, as I understand it, the intent of that sub-paragraph.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not want to dance on the head of a pin, but now the Minister has got into the potential for denying potential nationalities, and I would say that that is fraught with difficulties. I will leave it there—but it is an interesting point about the need for clarity. The Home Office not knowing what someone’s nationality is and being able to miss that out from a SIAC appeal as the basis of a process leading to, at some point, depriving someone of nationality or citizenship, seems a bit much.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly write to the noble Lord about it, but the short point is this: if SIAC is concerned, on the balance of probabilities, that somebody has only British citizenship and not another, it will not make an order of deprivation. I hope that, to some extent, answers his question.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think the Minister is saying that it is perfectly open to SIAC to reject that application on the basis that the Government do not know what they are doing with respect to that nationality and that they should come back at a future date when they have done a bit more work on it.
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.
EU Settlement Scheme
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the High Court judgment of 21 December 2022, what plans they have to allow EU citizens who hold pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (1) to keep their rights under the Withdrawal Agreement when that status expires, and (2) to automatically obtain permanent residence rights without making a second application to that scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
We have informed the High Court that we do not wish to pursue an appeal against the judgment. This avoids continuing uncertainty for those affected. We are working to implement the judgment as swiftly as possible, and we will provide a further update in due course.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is nearly three months since the High Court found that the Government’s interpretation of the withdrawal agreement was wrong in law in the way it constructed the EU settlement scheme for EEA citizens to get a permanent residence right. I suggest that the Government need to undertake some consultations with parties and groups with relevant expertise, such as the3million and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, to ensure that any changes now uphold—rather than undermine, as in the past—the rights under the withdrawal agreement. Are the Government undertaking such consultation? Can the Minister clarify what “in due course” really means?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm that work is proceeding to implement the judgment. As the noble Baroness will have noticed, the High Court accepted, in paragraphs 188 and 191 of its judgment, that
“before and after the conclusion of the WA”—
the withdrawal agreement—officials in the European Commission
“understood, and … accepted, the United Kingdom’s intention to require”
pre-settled status-holders
“to apply for settled status”.
In the High Court’s view, this was embarrassing for the Commission, but it did not alter the fact, as was contended by the Commission, that the text of the withdrawal agreement did not require such a further application for pre-settled status, and therefore the High Court found as it did. The Government will certainly implement its findings.
I add that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success, with over 7 million applications received and 6.9 million applications concluded as of 31 December 2022.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the High Court judgment was very much in line with the recommendations and spirit of the multiple reports on citizens’ rights of the European Union Committee and the European Affairs Committee. In the reset of the scheme, will the Government make provision for another of our strong recommendations, made multiple times in these many reports, for the option of physical proof of status?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Earl rightly observes, the High Court judgment upheld both limbs of the IMA challenge: first, that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a holder of pre-settled status does not expire for failure to make a second application to the EUSS; and, secondly, that a pre-settled status holder acquires the right to permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically once the conditions for it are met. The intention has always been to provide digital proof of status, and that remains the department’s view.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some people will always blame Britain and never Brussels. One of the reasons that this case came to court is because we have the independent monitoring authority, run by Sir Ashley Fox, a former colleague of mine and of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It has a budget of £5.5 million and 50 staff and has been working assiduously to ensure that EU nationals in the UK enjoy their full rights under the treaty. There is no equivalent body. It is supposedly the Commission that does it on other the side with a couple of people there.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend and can reassure him that the department works very closely with our colleagues in Brussels in relation to the protection of the rights of UK nationals within the European Union.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a positive move to implement the High Court judgment may help in bilateral representations where British citizens find themselves disadvantaged by the application of the immigration laws in certain EU countries where residence was not hitherto a problem?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that clearly it helps that the Home Office works very closely with those in the Commission in relation to the respective rights of citizens in each other’s countries.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the remedial action which he referred to in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will be completed and enforced by the date which the one that was struck down would have come in this autumn? Will he give an absolute undertaking that that will be remedied by then? Does he recognise that it might be more sensible if the Government paid a little more attention to the IMA, which was actually set up to give advice on how the withdrawal should be enforced, rather than forcing it to take them to court?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to abide by the judgment. We work very closely with the IMA and will continue to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, has not the Prime Minister, two weeks ago over the Northern Ireland protocol and last week with a highly successful visit to France, shown the tone that we should now adopt towards our European friends and allies and former partners in the EU?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, indeed. It is in that spirit of co-operation that the Government have determined that the appropriate method of resolving this case is to accept the present position—notwithstanding that permission to appeal was granted—to accept the judgment of the court and to make arrangements so that the scheme matches the findings of the court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the High Court’s decision affects about 2.6 million people granted pre-settled status. Will the Government now ensure that the plan to be put in place will be quick and that settled EU citizens do not risk having their right to live here put in any jeopardy? Can the Minister say what he means by “in due course”?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that we will certainly not put in jeopardy any such residence rights. I am afraid that I am unable to confirm at this stage what “in due course” might mean, but I hope to return to the House fairly shortly to confirm the position.
Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, would it be all right for me to say a few words because the last point on duress interests me? I happened to catch a bit of a programme the other night on the Border Force. They had found some people in the back of a curtain-sided lorry. What is interesting is how they got in there. You would not have been able to detect that if the driver or no one else had been present when they got in. They had very cunningly cut the wire. Once they were in, they put it back together again. It was undetectable. I would have thought it would have been very reasonable for the driver to say that he had absolutely no idea that they were in there. In fact, the Border Force said the same to him and that they were not going to go after him as the people were very cunning.
This is the trouble. There will be certain types of lorry where it will be virtually impossible for the driver to detect that people have got in. I do not think that you should have a single defence, virtually an absolute defence. Life is complicated. You have got to be able to have a reasonable excuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and acknowledge the particular concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The measures in these two instruments form part of the Government’s overall efforts to crack down on illegal migration. I look forward in time to debating the latest part of the work, the new Illegal Migration Bill, which noble Lords have referred to and which, of course, is presently being debated in the other place.
The regulations that are the basis of today’s discussions reform the clandestine entrant civil penalties scheme, which has existed since 1999 under the previous Labour Administration. The scheme has not been reformed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, and the maximum penalty levels have not changed, in over 20 years. The scheme is designed to complement law enforcement activity against criminals. It does this through tackling negligence by people who are not criminals but whose carelessness none the less means that they are responsible for a clandestine entrant gaining access to a vehicle.
Illegal migration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. A significant number of people who arrive in the UK by tourist and freight transport routes through concealment in vehicles have had their entry illegally facilitated by organised criminal gangs. This method of entry continues and endangers the lives of those involved. In many cases, this is a result of criminal gangs and opportunistic migrants taking advantage of unsecured, or poorly secured, vehicles to smuggle people into the UK clandestinely. To respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised, “clandestine” and other terms are defined in statute in Sections 31A and 32 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. To answer the noble Lord’s second question: yes, this applies to those travelling from the Republic of Ireland.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that we need to stop the dangerous crossings. That is the purpose of the proposed legislation. Sadly, safe and legal routes themselves are no answer as a deterrent. The Government were concerned that the existing clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme was not having the required effect. The data showed that drivers and other responsible persons frequently neglected to take the steps required to secure vehicles and that clandestine entrants continued to use these routes to come to the UK. Action was needed to remedy this.
These measures will disrupt the attempts by organised criminal gangs and opportunistic clandestine migrants to take advantage of unsecured or poorly secured vehicles to enter the United Kingdom illegally. Instead, this may prompt potential clandestine migrants to claim asylum in a safe country and to get quicker access to any help and support that they may require.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we continue to have productive dialogue with the Road Haulage Association, and I can confirm that our officials are speaking at one of its conferences on 22 March.
We have made it clear that, where checks cannot be carried out, they do not have to be carried out. The checklist that we have created covers all eventualities; some of them will not be relevant in particular circumstances.
As the noble Earl rightly observed, duress remains a statutory defence. That was reflected in the original scheme in 1999. We will consider whether drivers and companies carried out adequate checks as part of mitigation, which could see the level of fine reduced. This would cover the circumstances such as those described by the noble Earl.
I am of course grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for these regulations. It is for the reasons that I have already described that the United Kingdom operates a scheme to tackle illegal migration. The scheme means that, when clandestine entrants are found in a vehicle, a penalty can be imposed on any responsible person connected to the vehicle in question. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: yes, these measures match the risk and demand.
The reforms set out in the regulations are born out of the Government’s concern that the scheme is not having enough of an effect. I say that because, during the financial year 2020-21, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the Covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-22.
Drivers are not taking all the steps required to secure vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to enter the UK. It is for this reason that the Government committed to reviewing and overhauling the scheme as part of their New Plan for Immigration. A public consultation on that plan was held from 24 March to 6 May 2021. The Government, as noble Lords will recall, then introduced changes to the scheme through primary legislation in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The changes in that primary legislation narrowed the statutory defences available to those who had carried a clandestine entrant. In Committee on that Bill, those measures were the subject of an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not in her place today. That matter was canvassed during the passage of the Bill.
The 2022 Act introduced a new civil penalty for failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, regardless of whether a clandestine entrant has been found. The final changes brought into effect by these regulations were made following a further public consultation held between 18 July and 12 September 2022. The Government carefully considered representations made by respondents about the possible impact of our proposed reforms, including on trade, supply routes and recruitment. The Government are committed to working with individuals and companies to support growth while delivering a strong and effective border. In short, we think it is appropriate to increase the maximum penalty levels for the existing offence of carrying clandestine entrants, as they have not changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, since 2002. It is also appropriate to set meaningful levels of penalty for the new offence of failing to secure a goods vehicle, to incentivise compliance with our security standards.
Both reforms have been designed with a view to cracking down on repeated instances of negligence, as opposed to unfairly penalising those who have striven to comply with the regulations. For this reason, the reformed scheme has introduced a strikes system for both offences, geared at targeting repeat offenders, with the highest penalty levels being applied only in cases where repeated instances of negligence are evident. Where a person or company is being fined, we have set out in a new statutory code of practice the mitigating circumstances in which they could be eligible for a reduction in the level of their penalty.
The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of carrying a clandestine entrant will be £6,000 per clandestine entrant. This rises to a maximum of £10,000 for a second and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £12,000 and £20,000 for each offence respectively. The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of failing to adequately secure a goods vehicle will be £1,500. This will rise to a maximum of £3,000 for a second incident in the past five years, and to a maximum of £6,000 for a third and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £3,000, £6,000 and £12,000.
A responsible person being fined for carrying a clandestine entrant could be eligible for a reduction of 50% in the level of their penalty if they have complied with the security regulations. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if they are a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme. In respect of failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, a responsible person who is not the driver and who was not present during the journey of the vehicle or the detached trailer to the UK could be eligible for a 50% reduction in their penalty if they acted to ensure compliance with the security regulations. I hope these measures go some way to assuage the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, elucidated. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if the responsible person is a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme.
For both offences, individuals and companies will be able to apply for means testing to be applied when their level of penalty is being determined. The Secretary of State will be able to take into account those and any other factors they think appropriate in finalising the level of penalty to be levied. Indeed, they will retain a discretion not to impose a penalty at all in appropriate cases. The Government want people and companies to avoid being fined, and they can do so by complying with the security standards. We have set these in the new statutory regulations presently before the House. We have promoted adherence to the standards through further engagement with drivers and industry. This includes relaunching the civil penalty accreditation scheme I just mentioned, through which members are eligible for a potential 50% reduction in any fine.
The Government believe that this package of measures strikes the right balance between recognising the impact of penalties on individuals, companies and industry and incentivising compliance with our security standards and protecting border security. We are focused on delivering a fair and effective immigration system and, as I have said, these measures will allow us to strike the right balance in pursuit of that aim. With all that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly comprehensive response and to colleagues who have contributed to this short debate. I am certainly not against updating the penalties, because penalties are necessary, but there are one or two things about this that still concern me. The Minister summarised all the different people who could be involved in receiving penalties, if offences can be proved, and that reflects the different organisations that the logistics industry has these days, which I think we all accept.
Women’s Safety
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve women’s safety (1) from domestic violence, and (2) in the streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The Government are committed to tackling domestic abuse and making our streets safer. We have provided £125 million through the safer streets and safety of women at night funds. For example, Lambeth Council has received just over £1 million to deliver interventions including improving street lighting and CCTV. On 20 February, we announced new measures to crack down on domestic abusers, including the locations of domestic abuse protection order pilot sites.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank the Minister. The organisation Refuge has said there is a “fragile funding landscape” for specialised domestic abuse services, even though they are statutory, and more than 60% of referrals are turned away. Financial support for community-based support services such as advocacy and support for children is particularly dire as it is non-statutory. What steps will the Government take to provide better funding for the specialist domestic abuse service sector? Will the forthcoming victims Bill introduce an adequate, sustainable funding offer for specialist domestic abuse community-based services?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On 20 February, a package of measures was announced by the Home Secretary to tackle perpetrators and give better support to victims of domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness will know, the Government committed to legislate to add controlling or coercive behaviour, with a sentence of 12 months or more, to the list of offences eligible for management under MAPPA, and to ensure that all offenders managed under MAPPA are recorded under MAPPS when it is launched in 2024. She will know that MAPPS is replacing the violent and sex offender register. All these measures, together with the development and piloting of the domestic abuse harm risk assessment tool so that police forces can quickly identify the highest-risk perpetrators and take appropriate action, demonstrate the Government’s dedication to addressing these issues.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one of the first areas the Government have to address is the sexism and misogyny in police forces all over the UK. What specific measures has the Home Office suggested for all police forces? If the Minister cannot reply, I am happy to have a letter left in the Library.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am conscious that that is an issue to which the Home Office is paying close attention in light of the recent cases. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness about it and to deposit that letter in the Library.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that the current rules on indecent exposure go as far as they possibly could? Can he think of a reason why the perpetrator who went on to murder Sarah Everard was not apprehended and prosecuted for earlier offences of indecent exposure, which could have prevented her sad death?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am conscious that the case to which my noble friend alludes is a terrible one, and officials in the Home Office are very alive to it. The safer streets fund has worked with various local authorities to reduce the risk of incidents of indecent exposure. In particular, one project at the Basingstoke Canal had the effect of reducing incidents by 55%. Clearly there is much more to be done, but I assure my noble friend that that work will continue.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that confidence on the part of women that sexual and violent crimes against them will be properly investigated is at an all-time low? If so, what will be done to make sure that the police focus on the crime and the offender rather than on shredding and undermining the reputation of the victim?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The ambition of the department is to ensure that women and girls have absolute confidence in the police. I appreciate the difficulties that have been caused by recent court cases. I should add that in January we launched a fund worth £36 million for police and crime commissioners to increase the availability of interventions for domestic abuse perpetrators. These aim to improve victims’ safety and to reduce the risk posed by the perpetrator. I hope all these measures will generate increased confidence among women and girls.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that on International Women’s Day women’s voices might be given a little more prominence. I want to raise the issue of sexual harassment in public places. While it is very clear that not all men sexually harass women in public spaces, it would be hard to find a single woman who has not experienced it at some point in her life. What is being done to address that? There has been a call for misogynistic sexual harassment in public spaces to be addressed as a crime and to be more effectively dealt with. It is one of those things that blight women’s lives. Social media has disinhibited people so that, in the very way that we are seeing this happen online, we are now seeing it increasingly experienced by women offline, and it leads on to more serious crime. What is the state going to do about introducing a law to protect women in the streets, at bus stops and on public transport as they go about their lives?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness has said. I am delighted to confirm that the Government will support the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill, advanced by the right honourable Greg Clark, which would make public sexual harassment a specific offence. It provides that if someone commits an offence under the existing Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—that is, intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress—and does so because of the victim’s sex then they could obtain a higher sentence of two years rather than six months.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, what monitoring is undertaken by the Home Office of those who have been convicted of either sexual offences or domestic abuse who subsequently go on to change their names?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I know this issue has been raised in the House of Commons recently in a 10-minute rule Bill. It is certainly a matter that the Home Office has under review, and it may be something that we hear more about later.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage more intelligent and public-spirited young women to join the police force? Would that not go a long way towards making women feel that when they reported sexual abuse they would have a more understanding ear at the end of the phone? It would make women feel much safer on the streets if they knew that a female police officer might be there to help them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree, and there is much in what the noble Baroness says. I do not, I am afraid, have the statistics to hand as to the level of women among recent recruits to the police in meeting the 20,000 target that was in the last manifesto, but I can certainly find that out and write to her.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Kennedy, evidence suggests that the impact on victims of indecent exposure can be considerable, as visual sexual violence. If the report of Wayne Couzens’ indecent exposure had been taken seriously and acted upon, he would have been apprehended and would not have gone on to rape and murder Sarah Everard a few days later. In the past, the stereotype of a harmless and possibly mentally ill—but not dangerous—flasher has informed the view of this offence. Is it time to take the offence of indecent exposure more seriously, and how might that be achieved?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the first answer is the one I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, a moment ago. We are supporting the Bill brought by Greg Clark. There is also the money that has been spent under the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund. If I may return to the example of the funding for the Basingstoke Canal programme, it had a very effective method of tackling the crime of indecent exposure. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the impact of these offences has often been minimised in the past and we must not fall into that trap again.
Illegal Migration Bill
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill. Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed—no ifs, no buts. The Illegal Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores, in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.
The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015, we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people through family resettlement and global safe and legal routes. These include 150,000 people from Hong Kong escaping autocracy, 160,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war and 25,000 Afghans escaping the Taliban. Crucially, these are decisions supported by the British people precisely because they were decisions made by British people through their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers and other criminals looking to break into Britain daily. For a Government not to respond to waves of illegal arrivals breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the British people whom we are elected to serve.
The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressures from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow, and the problem is already unsustainable.
The volume of illegal arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe countries, such as Albania. The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.
Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country, costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.
This Government have not sat on their hands. Since the Prime Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint solutions with France, we have signed a new deal providing more technology and embedding British officers with French patrols. I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen co-operation.
We have created a new small boats operational command, with over 700 new staff; doubled NCA funding to tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%; signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return of hundreds of illegal arrivals; and we are procuring accommodation, including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating migrants in hotels.
But let us be honest: it is not enough. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let us be honest: by some counts there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed—back to your home country if it is safe, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats. This Bill enables detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm—an exceedingly high bar—in the country we are removing them to will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.
When our Modern Slavery Act passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal.
I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say this: the rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal. That is why the Bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders. Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position.
Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.
The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, ‘Enough is enough.’ This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this Conservative Government will act now to stop the boats. I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I came across an article that said:
“The longer the queue, the worse the administrative confusion, the greater the incentive is for racketeers to target their efforts on Britain. There is a direct link between Government incompetence in managing asylum cases and the surge in applications to stay here.”
This was written in 2000 by William Hague, then the leader of the Conservative Party and now of course the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. He was criticising the then Labour Government, but, in the ministerial letter we received, referring to plans to
“clear the legacy initial decision asylum backlog by the end of 2023”,
there was a complete failure to acknowledge that this legacy was created by a Tory-run Home Office, which has never got a grip over the last 13 years. Nearly 100,000 people have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over six months—that is four times the number in 2019. We need a minimum service level in the Home Office.
We all want to see an end to dangerous channel crossings, but the Bill and the hullabaloo surrounding it are just more of the same gimmicky gesture politics, not the practical and sustainable solution that is actually needed. The Bill is not only unworkable but illegal and immoral. It treats people as criminals simply for seeking refuge. In the article I quoted from, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said:
“We believe Britain has a moral as well as a legal duty to welcome here people who are fleeing for their lives.”
That “we” was the Conservative Party 23 years ago. No wonder that even some Tory MPs are now upset at the xenophobic and dehumanising rhetoric and intentions to breach the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In her enthusiasm to make the demonisation of refugees an election selling point, the Home Secretary appears to have broken the Ministerial Code: a fundraising email sent in her name to Conservative Party supporters disgracefully tarred civil servants as part of an “activist blob” that has “blocked” the Government from trying to stop the small boat crossings.
Why is the Bill needed, when the ink is barely dry on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was supposed to be the magic solution that would stop the boats? This plan will punish the victims of persecution and human trafficking, but it will do nothing to stop the evil criminal gangs who profit from these small boat crossings. Not only are the majority of men, women and children who cross the channel doing so because they are desperate to escape war, conflict and persecution; most of them are in fact granted the protection they need. Four out of 10 people arriving on boats last year were from just five countries, with an asylum grant rate of over 80%—the Home Office recently decided to fast-track applications from a similar list of countries. How does the plan to deem inadmissible any claims from people who arrive on small boats from countries such as Afghanistan or Syria accord with these facts?
The only way to stop these dangerous crossings is to create safe and legal routes. The Government talk about such routes, but where and what are they? Will the Government commit to granting humanitarian visas to people needing to flee? We are told that the Bill will introduce an annual cap on the number of refugees whom the UK will accept, but how would that work? If the next person arriving is escaping the terrible cruelty of the Taliban or the appalling regime in Iran, will they just be refused? The number of family reunion visas issued in the year to September last year was more than a third down on 2019, so safe routes are in fact being constricted. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will commit to supporting my Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which recently passed this House, when it progresses through the other place?
Instead of locking up asylum seekers or forcing them to stay in hotels, will the Government commit to ending their absurd ban on asylum seekers working after they have been waiting months for their claims to be processed? If so, they could pay their way.
We are expected to proceed with a Bill of which the Government themselves say there is more than a 50% chance that it is incompatible with the ECHR. Quite how they can say they
“remain confident that this Bill is compatible with international law”,
when simultaneously believing that it is only 50% likely to be, is a mystery. How can a law actually designed to circumvent human rights possibly be fit for purpose? Lastly, speaking of human rights, can I ask for a list of countries to which people would not be returned?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that the need for reform is obvious and urgent. The problem in the channel has grown over the last two years. Since 2018, 85,000 illegally entered the UK by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. Many of them came from safe countries, such as Albania, and all travelled through multiple safe countries, in which they could and should have claimed asylum. The vast majority, 74% in 2021, were adult males under 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.
Noble Lords will not have noticed or been able to discern from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, any policy from either the Labour Party or the Liberal party to address the crossing of the channel. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that the delays in the asylum process were causing the mass migration—this is simply not the case. As the UNHCR says, there are 100 million refugees in the world at the moment. This requires an urgent and sustainable solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me whether the Nationality and Borders Act was not a complete answer. I can reassure him that it was never said that that Act would be a silver bullet. This Bill builds on that Act, which laid the foundations of our approach but, because the situation has got worse, we now need to go further. The Nationality and Borders Act was about changing how we processed asylum claims in the current system to streamline it and reduce late and spurious claims. It made progress, and it is right that we did that, but this is different. We are now going to move these cases out of the system entirely, so they are heard elsewhere in a safe country. Illegal entry will no longer be a route to making a claim to settle in the UK—it is only by making it clear that if you come here illegally you will not have the ability to stay here that we will stop the boats. That is a measure of compassion, because it will stop people embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel.
Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has suggested that creating safe and legal routes is the answer, I can reply to her that it is no answer. If Parliament set a cap of, say, 30,000 that it was going to take by means of the safe and legal routes that already exist, all that would happen is that the demand would remain from those who do not fall within the cap, and the criminal gangs would still be there to feed that demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his right honourable friends in the other place, suggested that the answer was to put more money into the NCA to break the criminal gangs. We have already done that: the NCA funding has been doubled, but that cannot on its own be any answer. The only answer is one to be made in legislation.
For all those reasons, I do not accept the criticisms advanced by noble Lords.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Last year, 50% of those who crossed the channel came from only five countries—Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, Sudan and Iran. If I were a young woman in Iran being hunted by the authorities for demonstrating and had relatives in this country, how could I come here? What safe and legal route is open to me? I believe that there is none. If we want to put the smugglers out of business, as of course we all do, the way to do it, contrary to what the Minister has just said, is to open safe and legal routes. It is absurd to suggest that a flow of 100 million would come in; that is just wild and ridiculous talk.
Has the Minister considered the likely cost of this policy? It seems to have three defects: first, it wrecks our reputation; secondly, it will not work because it will not put the smugglers out of business; and, thirdly, it could have considerable economic costs. Has the Minister considered Article 692 of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU? If the EU believes that we have broken the European Convention on Human Rights—and the Home Secretary says in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, that she cannot confirm that we have not—and if it turns out that we have, as I believe we have, the Commission has the right to denounce the trade and co-operation agreement. I do not know how much of that it would denounce, but it has been in the press this afternoon that a commissioner contacted the Home Office today. Could the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the form of action that the Commission would ask the European Union to take against us, and what economic cost that would have?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. First, I can reconfirm that safe and legal routes exist. As I have repeatedly told the House—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord could listen for a moment. As I told the House, the UK resettlement scheme is one that permits the Government to accept refugees who have been approved by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and are taken directly from conflict zones. This scheme grew out of the Syria and Jordan schemes, and it is a principled and fair way in which to resettle those in need of protection. It has the advantage, as noble Lords will immediately notice, of providing protection to those who need it, not based on their ability to cross Europe and pay a people smuggler to get them across the channel on the basis that they are in sufficiently good health to survive the journey. The present safe and legal routes that exist are much fairer and more appropriate.
In the second part of the noble Lord’s question, he gave a list of countries from which people crossed the channel, but he omitted, of course, Albania, a safe third country which is a NATO member and EU accession country. Given the vast numbers who come by that route from safe third countries, I simply do not accept the premise of his question.
As to his suggestion that in some way the trade and co-operation agreement would be renounced as a result of this Bill being passed, I do not accept that contention for one moment. The Government are of the view that the measures in this Bill are compatible with our international obligations—and time will tell.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My noble friend the Minister is an experienced lawyer, and we have heard a lot about how this may or may not be in contravention of international law. I am not an experienced lawyer, but perhaps he could help me out. A lot of the critics are saying that we should let all these people in and then determine things and possibly reward them with British citizenship. Does he think that, if we let people into this country who break the law to come here and then rewarded them with British citizenship, it would undermine everybody’s respect for the rule of law in this country?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend. The reality appears to be, from the policy vacuum on the Labour Benches, that the Labour Party is in favour of open borders, which appears to be entirely out of step with the views of the British people.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the notion that the Labour Party is in favour of open borders is a complete calumny. It is a disgrace that we should argue such an important issue in this way. Article 692 has been referred to, and it is clear from the evidence that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of this House received earlier this week that it is likely that Part 3 of the TCA would be disestablished. The consequences of that would be absolutely catastrophic.
Let me put this to the Minister: when his boss, the Home Secretary, talked about the 100 million people displaced, and in the next sentence said, “These people are coming here”—that is what she said—did she not believe that she was throwing a match into an oil tanker? Did she not understand the Donald Trump playbook of creating a crisis then believing that other people can be blamed, such as the Civil Service, the opposition parties and this House?
I suggest that it is worth at least thinking about the idea that, while we might take this Bill through Committee, we do not vote it down, because that is exactly what this Conservative Government want. Let us have a sensible debate about sensible policies agreed with the French, starting next Friday, to do what we did 20 years ago and stop the flow.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord will recall from his time in this department, the policy of stopping asylum is not straightforward, and that of stopping people from entering illegally and claiming asylum is not straightforward. The Labour Party failed in its time in office to answer this question, and the problem has only got worse, particularly over the past two years. It is with this legislation that we are addressing the issue that has arisen. In the absence of a policy from the Labour Party, we can do no other than to conclude that it is in favour of open borders.
As to the noble Lord’s second point in relation to international co-operation, it has been vital, alongside the creation of this new legislation, to liaise internationally both with the French and the Albanians. As the noble Lord is aware, the Prime Minister is meeting President Macron on Friday to discuss these issues.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that this is too serious a matter to try to turn it into party politics? Does he further accept that international law is crucially important for Britain and for the establishment of a whole range of other things? The Conservative Party is intended to be the party of law and order. I must say to him that many of us accept the seriousness of the numbers of people concerned. If you are concerned with climate change—as I am—it will increase and be worse, but we cannot do this by breaking international law.
I will go along all the way with my noble friend on the tough measures that have to be taken, but he has to accept that to propose something that is against international law will undermine all the other things that we have to do throughout the world. It does not help to say things that are, frankly, somewhat distant from the truth. I happen to think that the Labour Party has got it wrong, but it does not mean that, because it has got it wrong, it does not have a policy. On this occasion, unusually, it does.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that, as I have already said, the Government do not believe that they are acting contrary to international law.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, if it was so that the Government are not acting contrary to international law, as the Minister has just said, then the compatibility statement would be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
No, I have not finished; I have a number of points that I would like to make to the Minister. It seems to me that, if we are saying that this is ultimately a matter that must be decided by the courts, that is no way to treat Parliament. Indeed, the process being suggested, that we should proceed with a Bill that is in contravention of the Human Rights Act, seems an insult to both Houses of Parliament and I am surprised that the Government would even contemplate that.
I have one or two question to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about international law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said, in terms:
“This would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention”
and would undermine
“the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established.”
Is the Government’s position that the refugee convention should no longer apply in the United Kingdom or that it already does not apply in the United Kingdom?
Secondly, there are arrangements suggested in Clause 3 of the Bill on the removal of unaccompanied children. How could such a removal ever be compatible with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Clause 2(2)(a) will prevent anyone claiming asylum who has travelled on a forged passport—in fact, I think the Minister referred to this a moment ago. However, we know of course that many people fleeing persecution will have sought to deceive the authorities in the country from which they are fleeing—that is entirely to be expected in circumstances where they are being persecuted by that Government. Given that is the case, is not the UNHCR right to describe this Bill as destroying the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will deal with that question in parts. First, as to the declaration on the front of the Bill—to which I draw the noble Lord’s attention—he will note that the Secretary of State, Suella Braverman, made a statement under Section 19(1)(b) that:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
As the noble Lord will be aware, when the Labour Government introduced the Human Rights Act, Section 19 provided for a ministerial statement as to compatibility. By way of a Statement, the then Minister in charge of the Bill, Jack Straw, provided that this test should be one of a 50% threshold. The effect is that a Section 19(1)(a) statement is that you are satisfied that the measures are absolutely compliant, and a Section 19(1)(b) statement is that you are less than absolutely sure. Therefore, by placing a declaration of this kind on the front of the Bill, it is not a statement that the Government believe that the measures in it are not compatible; it is clearly the case that there is a strong—in my submission—legal basis for contending that these measures are compatible. However, applying the principles enunciated by Jack Straw following the passage of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary has quite properly appended her name to the statement on the front of this Bill. That, I hope, deals with the noble Lord’s first point.
I turn to the noble Lord’s second point, in relation to the UNHCR’s comments yesterday evening—I think the UK representative of the UNHCR made some comments. Plainly, His Majesty’s Government disagree with that analysis. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the passage in the judgment given by the High Court in the Rwanda case, in which submissions were made by counsel on behalf of the UNHRC in relation to its views on the scheme. The court did not say that those submissions were correct. It is clear that this is no infallible statement as to compatibility with international law.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before noble Lords continue, there are a lot of people wanting to ask questions, so I implore noble Lords to ask short questions that will elicit short answers from the Minister. Let us continue with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the rule of law. Why is it, then, that every time this Government find themselves in difficulty, they seek refuge in illegality? They did so in Part 5 of the markets Bill, they did so in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, and now we have the admission, to which the Minister has just referred, that the provisions in this Bill may be illegal. Of course, we have to take that together with the opinion expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The unwillingness to give certification in the usual form is, in a sense, corroborated by what the UNHCR has said.
Even the title of this Bill is ambiguous. It is called the “Illegal Migration Bill”, but we are not clear yet —it is at least becoming clear to me—that it is not the migration that is illegal but the Bill itself. I finish by repeating a point already made: growing up in politics in this country, I have been told many times that the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. I have stopped believing that this evening.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. The Conservative Party very much remains the party of law and order. It is this Parliament that decides the laws for this country, and it is this Parliament that must decide who can enter and when they can enter. It is our view that these measures are compatible with international law. That does not—whatever the noble Lord might suggest—render the measures in this Bill in any way illegal.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I return to the Statement, rather than the Bill, which we will spend hours debating in due course. There was a lot in this Statement that worried me, but what worried me even more was that there was no reference whatever to children, unaccompanied children and their protection in this whole process. Can the Minister comment on why nothing was said about that in the Statement?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Statement was intended to—and did—accurately set out the contents of the Bill. Indeed, in the exchanges that followed, which the right reverend Prelate will find in Hansard, it was clear that there was discussion of the status of children. I can confirm that the position is this: the removal of any under-18s will be delayed until adulthood except in certain circumstances. As the right reverend Prelate is aware, one issue that has arisen in relation to the exception for minors is of people claiming to be minors when they are not. This is of course an attempt to evade immigration control and can have serious safety ramifications if such a person is placed with children.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I express the hope that when the Prime Minister is discussing things with President Macron, they have two aims: first, to establish safe, simple, clean accommodation in France, jointly paid for by this country and France; and, secondly, to make a real attempt to arrest and punish those who pilot the boats. There is a big difference between them and those who sacrifice both their lives and their life savings to get across.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is not the case, I am afraid, that the people-smuggling gangs are responsible for piloting the vessels: quite frequently they will delegate the duty of piloting the vessels to other passengers; it is not uniquely the case. This means that it is in fact much harder to penalise the masterminds behind these organisations. Very great efforts are made, but the reality is that there is a massive demand to cross the channel. Lots of people want to come to our country, and when there is that untapped demand, unfortunately, the likelihood is that if one criminal gang is closed down, another will crop up, unless you attack the seat of the problem, which is the demand for illegal migration.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murray is going to hate me, but I have just had agreement through the usual channels that we will go an extra 10 minutes, given the demand for questions. So we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from my noble friend Lord Balfe and from the Cross Benches.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sure the Minister will wish to correct an erroneous statement that he made in responding to the Front-Bench questions. He said there are 100 million refugees in the world. That is not what the Statement says. The figure from which the Statement draws comes, I believe, from the UNHCR: 100 million displaced people in the world, most of whom are in the countries of origin. I am sure the Minister will want to correct that. I am going to pick up on the question of children. Have the Minister or the Government considered what life would be like for a 16 year-old, a 15 year-old or a 17 year-old being held—warehoused—in this country and then, the day they turn 18, being thrown out, even though we know they are a refugee?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and I entirely accept her correction. She is quite right about the figure of 100 million: it is displaced persons. On her second point, I am afraid I do not accept that it would be appropriate to exclude everyone under 18 from the operation of the scheme, and it is obvious why that should be: sadly, such an exception would generate very great abuse.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this is certainly not an ideal Bill, but the problem it seeks to address has been around for a long time. In my view, it lost us the referendum, which was a big tragedy.
Lord Balfe (Con)
It won the noble Lord the referendum, but it lost me the referendum. The key point surely is that we live in a democracy. The people are demanding action in this area loud and clear, and it is our duty as a Government to deliver what the public want. The public want the boats stopped, so I hope that we can have a discussion on the basis of making the Bill work, not wrecking it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I really hope we do not play party politics with the Bill. Earlier, it was said that the Home Secretary had created a crisis by the use of rhetoric and I just point out that, no, she did not: there is a crisis and that is that we are not controlling the borders. So we have to be very careful—on all sides, by the way. Will the Minister reflect, based on the Statement, that the very concept of modern slavery, for example, but even asylum and refugee status, are in danger of being undermined by the confusion caused by claiming that people from safe countries are fleeing war and persecution? People are becoming cynical when they hear the word “asylum”. There is a gaslighting of the British public by people who challenge them and tell them they are inhumane and not compassionate. Will he reflect on the toxicity that has been created by that, with the trending of “Nazi Germany”, “1930s” and all the rest of it? That is an insult to the British public, is it not?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes. Taking the noble Baroness’s points in order, I very much heed her words: it is very important that discussion of these issues happens in a calm and measured fashion. On her second point in relation to the cynicism that is born of the abuse of the generosity of the British people towards those seeking asylum and humanitarian protection, I could not agree more. Sadly, that has led to a reputation that these measures can be abused by those who are, in reality, wanting to come to Britain for reasons of economic migration rather than for genuine protection. Abusing those measures has led to a degree of cynicism among the public. Finally, on her final point as to whether there is toxicity, there is. The best way to deal with that is to stop the boats and have a system of asylum protection that brings people directly from neighbouring countries to those from which these people come and does not allow people to jump the queue by travelling across Europe and paying the people smugglers.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a landmark Act, followed by many parts of the world. Do the Government appreciate the impact across the world, in countries that have followed us, of the extent to which we are reneging on that Act under Clauses 21 to 25?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree that the Modern Slavery Act was a landmark provision, but sadly that too has been the subject of very extensive abuse. As we set out in the Statement, it is clear that people are being advised to claim that they are victims of modern slavery in order to avail of the respite and the long period for conclusive determination of modern slavery claims, which was passed by this House and the other place as a measure of compassion for modern slaves. The measures in this Bill do not undermine our principle of acting to stop this evil practice of modern slavery.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that we cannot solve this problem by unilateral domestic action alone? We have to have co-operation with European countries that are facing similar problems of asylum and refugees. Does he also accept that this co-operation is going to be very difficult to deliver if we are seen to be unilaterally going against the European Convention on Human Rights? This is fundamental, because it will not only stop co-operation in this area but threaten co-operation in areas such as trade. It is a foundation of the Good Friday agreement and is vital to Britain’s standing in the world.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree that international co-operation is a vital part of the jigsaw; that is why we reached fresh agreements in December with the Governments of Albania and of France and why the Prime Minister is meeting President Macron on Friday. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord. However, I do not agree that the United Kingdom cannot act unilaterally, because we need to stop people taking these risky journeys across the channel—one of the busiest and most dangerous sea lanes in the world. That requires special legislation to be passed by this Parliament, and this Bill satisfies that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, last year, we granted right of admission to 1.1 million people and gave right to remain to 504,000 people? Is it not unsurprising, given the scale of those numbers, that the British people are asking us to bear down on those who seek to jump the queue and arrive illegally?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I could not have put it better myself; I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who said what the vast majority of the British people will be thinking—that at last the Government are doing something to make sure that we can control our borders? Will stopping the use of hotels require legislation—if so, that could take some time—or are the Government committed to stopping it as soon as possible?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Home Office very much wishes to stop the use of hotels. I hope there may be some announcements on that in the near future.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Does the Minister think it is humane and shows the sense of Great British compassion that, under the provisions of this Bill, an unaccompanied child fleeing war and arriving on these shores at the age of seven will, 11 years later at the age of 18, be deported to another country and have no automatic right of return to the country in which he or she has been for 11 years and made his or her life?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
This is a scheme to prevent illegal immigration. That person would need to have paid a people smuggler to bring them across the channel. For the scheme to be coherent, age alone cannot automatically exclude membership from the cohort for removal.
National Security Bill
Lord Murray of Blidworth ExcerptsWednesday 1st March 2023
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers the introduction of a public interest defence—a PID. This topic has been debated at length throughout the passage of the Bill. As the House will hear, the Government agree with the criticisms of Amendment 79, just elucidated so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
I thank all noble Lords for their remarks during this debate, especially the degree of involvement we have had in the development of the Bill generally, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the last group. However, it is right to say that the amendment does not address the issues that arise, and the Government therefore cannot accept it. As I set out during the debate in Committee, the offences in the Bill target harmful activity from foreign states, not whistleblowing or public interest journalism. Our view, therefore, is that a public interest defence is not only unnecessary but risks significantly undermining the utility of the provisions in the Bill.
The Government’s principal position is that a public interest defence in relation to espionage is not appropriate. While we note the changes made to the amendment, this does not change the Government’s view on the matter. Notably, the risk with a public interest defence is that, at the point that the defence comes into play, the harm will already have been done. Seeking to rebut any form of public interest defence in criminal proceedings risks only compounding the damage. This, of course, is a point already eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans.
Furthermore, the proposed public interest defence for onward disclosures of information obtained via the espionage offences in the Bill, as has been proposed here, is inherently damaging to the national interest. I also entirely agree in this regard with the noble Lord, Lord Evans. To permit onward disclosures of this information under any circumstances would significantly undermine the weight we are affording to these offences.
The questions posed about the Law Commission’s recommendations relate to the Official Secrets Act 1989 which is not, as we discussed in Committee, the topic of reform in this legislation. We have heard strong views and concerns raised about the 1989 Act in our public consultation, and we need to take time to give proper consideration to those concerns. Therefore, we are not reforming the Official Secrets Act 1989 in this Bill.
It is clear to us that reform is complex and engages a wide range of interests. It is only right that proper due consideration should be given to the concerns that stakeholders have raised in the consultation. Furthermore, we need to prioritise delivery of our wider package of measures to tackle state threats and ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence partners have the tools that they need to keep us safe from those seeking to do us harm. We do not want the complexity of Official Secrets Act 1989 reform to distract from this. To that end, I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Evans, said.
I turn to the points raised in the previous group by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to whistleblowers. We say that there are sufficient safeguards for whistle- blowers in the espionage offences. For the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information, that activity has to be for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. If an individual uses appropriate whistleblowing routes, their conduct would not meet this requirement—a point powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, when these amendments were being considered in Committee.
For the offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets, the activity has to be unauthorised. Using appropriate whistleblowing routes would not meet the requirement for unauthorised activity. Moreover, there is a damage element to the offence in Clause 2(2)(b). For the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service, the person has to know or reasonably ought to know that their conduct may assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK activities or intend their conduct to do so. This is very different from reporting something to an appropriate regulatory body as a whistleblower.
It is not the case that there is a reliance upon juries in the place of a whistleblowing defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, appeared to contend. The role of a jury, when advised by the judge, is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial. This takes up many of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier in his speech a moment ago. This is an integral tenet of our justice system and applies in 1989 Act cases. This does not mean that the Official Secrets Act 1989 legislation is deficient. There is, of course, no statutory public interest defence in the 1989 Act, and therefore it is already clear in the law that juries should not acquit a defendant on the basis that they consider that the public interest in making a disclosure outweighs the damage caused by the disclosure. The Government are clear that we do not consider the introduction of a public interest defence in the Official Secrets Act 1989 to be appropriate. It is not the safest or most appropriate way for an individual to raise a concern of wrongdoing and have it rectified. It is already possible to make disclosures of information that are not damaging without breaching the 1989 Act.
However, the Government have heard and understand the concerns that the Bill could inadvertently capture genuine journalistic activity, as we discussed in the previous group. Even if the Government were to accept that these offences risk criminalising such genuine activity, a public interest defence would not be an appropriate way to address this. This sentiment was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, during the debate on the public interest defence in Committee, for which I am grateful. Indeed, a public interest defence would create loopholes that hostile actors would use to commit espionage against the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was quite correct in saying, the difficulty for whistleblowers is that they have an imperfect picture of the available information. It is not for the whistleblower to determine the extent of potential damage caused by the disclosure in the public interest.
The question of damage was raised in the debate. It was suggested that a damage requirement should be added to these offences. The Government’s position is that this would significantly undermine their utility. The type of activity described in the offences is inherently damaging. For example, in Clause 1, if an individual discloses protected information to a foreign power or otherwise on their behalf or for their benefit with a purpose
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”,
this is inherently damaging. Including a damage requirement would mean that we may need to prove the damage caused by disclosure in court. This, of course, would risk compounding that damage further. If we could not prove that damage in court, for example, because the risk of compounding the damage was too great, a person could freely provide protected information to a foreign power with the intention to prejudice the United Kingdom.
I already noted the potential risks and loopholes that could be created and exploited. This is not a defence in relation to Clause 3(2). The Government have extensively considered the arguments for and against a public interest defence but have concluded that the risk this could cause to the United Kingdom and the fact that this would undermine the purposes of the Bill mean that such a defence is not appropriate. Therefore, there is no need for an assessment and formal consultation on the inclusion of such a defence as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at Amendment 18A and the Government do not accept that amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted, there have been significant changes to the oversight provisions in the Bill. It is correct that this amendment should be viewed in light of those changes in position by the Government.
Instead, we say that the focus should be on ensuring that the drafting of the requirements and offences in the Bill is sufficiently tightly drawn to ensure that genuine activity, including by journalists, is not in scope. This is why the Government have responded by tabling amendments to the provisions in Part 1, as stated a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. This includes clarifying the phrase “ought reasonably to know” and the amendments to Clause 3. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the tabled amendments.
I move now to Amendment 79A, which proposes the establishment of a new office for the national security whistleblower. I am grateful for the indication from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he will not be pushing the matter to a vote but let me outline the government position in relation to that. This proposal differs from that debated in Committee in this House. The Government’s view remains that such a role is not required in relation to these offences. As I set out in Committee,
“The Government are committed to ensuring that our whistle- blowing framework is robust, and I confirm that the business department intends to carry out the promised review of the existing framework, and that further details will be set out in due course in relation to that.”—[Official Report, 18/1/23; col. 1913.]
We have just debated how the Bill targets hostile activities for and on behalf of foreign powers. I have been explicit that this legislation is not targeting the genuine work of journalists. By extension, it is therefore clear that the Bill does not target genuine whistleblowing. Consequently, a whistleblowing office in relation to this Bill misunderstands the aims of the legislation. Again, I refer the House to the Committee stage, when I and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, set out the options available where an individual has a genuine need to raise a concern and I shall not repeat those here. The Government are committed to ensuring that these channels are safe, effective and accessible. For these reasons, we cannot accept the tabled amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is also on these amendments, and I have also spoken with the High Commission; my noble friend Lord Purvis has spoken to both the Minister on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in the Foreign Office. If I have an interest to declare, it is that 25 years ago I worked on the Cyprus conflict and discovered a fair amount about the complexities of Cypriot politics—and they are no less complex today than they were then.
I will make a number of domestic comparisons. This is in my experience very much a Home Office Bill; it does not appear to take into account diplomatic niceties or the sensitivities of other states. We have some bitter experience in this country of sensitivities about sovereignty and the attempts by other states to exert legislative authority over this country, in relation to the EU. We are still being told that the European Court of Justice has imperial ambitions, and that we had to regain our sovereignty because it was trying to legislate for us, about our country.
Beyond that, of course, we have US bases in this country. I am very familiar with RAF Menwith Hill, which is close to where I live in Yorkshire, and I know a fair amount about RAF Mildenhall. The Minister will remember that when it appeared that the wife of a US serviceman at RAF Mildenhall was trying to evade British law by claiming diplomatic immunity and then going to the United States, there was a campaign of outrage in the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and others over this incursion into British sovereignty.
I remind the Minister that the agreements between the UK and the United States over US bases in this country are extremely discreet: the details have not been published; they are renewed every 10 years without parliamentary debate; and the two countries negotiate quietly about the conditions under which they operate. They do not involve Congress legislating with reference to these extraterritorial bases in the United Kingdom. Indeed, if Congress were to legislate with reference to RAF Mildenhall, RAF Menwith Hill and other bases, I am sure that the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and others would be outraged on our behalf at this apparent imperial incursion into British sovereignty.
I am conscious that Cypriot domestic opinion has as many elements, from the right to the left, as we have in this country. Of course, it would be a populist, nationalistic, mischievous campaign to provoke a public outrage in Cyprus about this apparent incursion into Cypriot sovereignty, but we in Britain now have some hard-won and bitter experience of how easy it is for populist and mischievous politicians to cause nationalistic outrage.
These references are not necessary. Clause 97 is enough. I hope that the Minister will take advice and consider that the Government should withdraw the references to the sovereign base areas in these other clauses. I repeat: Clause 97 is enough. The good will of the Government of Cyprus, and of the public in Cyprus, is important to this country, and we should not offend them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, this group covers a variety of related topics. The House has heard only about the amendments pertaining to the sovereign base areas, but I will address the other amendments advanced by the Government. The group covers amendments to the meaning of “government department” and changes to Schedule 2 to the Bill, and it deals with the amendments on the sovereign base areas, which I will come to in a second.
I start with a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in Committee. The question at the time was whether the reference to “government department” in the meaning of “Crown interest” in Clause 7 may include the departments of the devolved Administrations. It is the Government’s intention that any reference to “government department” within Part 1 of the Bill, including those falling under “Crown interest”, applies only to government departments of the United Kingdom. This means that we are not seeking to extend the meaning of “government department” to the devolved Administrations. I hope that this goes some way to settling the noble Lord’s concerns.
The Government have also made a number of changes to Schedule 2 to the Bill. In Committee, they made an amendment so that the Bill makes explicit provision that a Schedule 2 production order can be made to a judge without the subject being given notice of the application in advance. Currently, sub-paragraph (d) of condition 5 of the search and seizure powers at paragraphs 9 and 25 of Schedule 2 outlines that this condition may be met if the service of notice of an application for a production order may seriously prejudice an investigation. Without further change, this condition is no longer operationally effective because a warrant for search and seizure would not be granted in instances where the use of a production order more generally, which had been given without notice to a judge, would prejudice an investigation.
This group of amendments therefore closes the gap by bringing condition 5 closer to the equivalent provisions of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which sets out that the use of a production order would not be appropriate because an investigation may be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material. It is important to stress that it has always been the Government’s position that the use of production orders should be considered in the first instance, resorting to a warrant where such an order is not appropriate to the investigation.
Finally, government Amendment 60 simply makes it clear that Acts of Adjournal made in relation to the production order powers in part 2 of Schedule 2 would be made by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. This is already the case within the current drafting, and we seek only to make this clear. Government Amendments 55 and 59 simply add the offences under Schedules 3 and 4—which were added to the Bill in Committee in the Commons—to the list of offences for which the powers of entry, search and seizure in Schedule 2 are not available.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. These amendments seek to remove references to the sovereign base areas from the prohibited places provisions in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. The sovereign base areas are critical for UK defence and include a unique governance structure among the overseas territories given that the administrator, who is also the commander of British Forces Cyprus, has all the executive and legislative authority of the Government of the UK overseas territory.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Is the Minister classifying the sovereign base areas as having the same relationship with Britain as overseas territories? I was not aware that the SBAs were formally overseas territories.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the SBAs are a special structure, as set out in the 1960 treaty. As I say, they have a unique governance structure which I have already described. The unique context of the SBAs is precisely why we are including the option to extend the legislation to the SBAs in their entirety.
The thought behind these amendments is that the power in Clause 97 to extend the legislation to the SBAs is sufficient on its own. I understand the thinking behind this. However, these references are quite distinct and achieve different aims. References to the SBAs in Clauses 7 and 8 ensure that harmful activity taking place in respect of prohibited places will be prosecutable under UK law, in UK courts, only where it constitutes an offence under Clause 4. It is important to stress that the offence under Clause 5 cannot be committed in the SBAs, as this clause does not apply outside the United Kingdom. Similarly, the police powers under Clause 6 are conferred only on constables under UK law, and as such cannot be used in the SBAs. This inclusion of the SBAs maintains the status quo, given provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which already cover prohibited places in the SBAs as part of His Majesty’s dominions.
Clause 97, however, creates a power to extend any provision in Part 1 of the National Security Bill, with or without modification, to the SBAs. Should the power be used, the provisions will then form part of SBA law, and this would allow harmful activity to be prosecuted in SBA courts. Removing references in Clauses 7 and 8 to the SBAs would mean that those sites were no longer protected under UK law. That would reduce the protections currently afforded to them under the Official Secrets Act 1911, which will of course be repealed through this Bill. Furthermore, it is critical that these protections are afforded under UK law given that there is no guarantee that an Order in Council would be made so as to extend this part of the Bill to SBA law, leaving those sites potentially without any legislative protection. To reiterate the point I made in Committee—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The point, as the noble Lord will appreciate, is that the Bill should endeavour not to leave any potential vacancies which would potentially deprive the SBAs of applicability to this very important statutory provision. I reiterate the point I made in Committee that the Government consider that any references in the Bill to the sovereign base areas will not in any way undermine the provisions of the 1960 treaty, concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, between the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.
To address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I can confirm that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the SBAs were consulted extensively throughout the Bill’s development and agree on its conclusion. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord that relying solely on Clause 97 would cause no harm.
I hope this explains the need to maintain the references in Clauses 7 and 8 and why the Government cannot accept the tabled amendments.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister has given us an explanation and I accept that the reference to a constable is to a United Kingdom constable, but Clause 6 gives the constable the power to clear people out of prohibited places. Why is it necessary for United Kingdom law to apply? Why is it not enough that this power should exist under the Order in Council applicable to the SBA? Since only the United Kingdom constable is covered in Clause 6, how can it possibly be necessary to define “prohibited place” for the purposes of Clause 6 as including places outside the United Kingdom? I just do not understand it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Government take the view that it is necessary to have the matter protected in UK law in addition to SBA law, and that, I am afraid, is the answer.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister was careful when he said that the SBAs and the FCDO were consulted by the Home Office on bringing forward this decision. I would assume that one department would consult another in its own Government with regards to a Bill—I think we can take it as read that the Home Office should have consulted the FCDO. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made was that there was no consultation with the Government of Cyprus, which is embedded in the principles of the establishment treaty in 1960. That is why there is a problem with it.
With regards to the further point from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, if it is only a UK constable, and only within UK domestic law, who enforces it within the SBA area? Who enforces it within the adjacent area to the SBAs, given that the measures are much wider than simply activities here in the UK? Who enforces it there?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hope I have already made clear, it is only Clause 4 that applies. Clause 6 does not apply in this context.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid I am very puzzled as a result of the Minister’s reply.
First, I think he was suggesting that the Government of Cyprus had been fully consulted. If he was suggesting that, all I can say is that that is the opposite of what I was told, and what the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Wallace and Lord Anderson, and everybody else who has been spoken to has been told. Secondly, why did the Government change Clause 97? Clause 97 provides for the powers earlier in the Bill to be operated within the SBA following an Order in Council. Are the Government saying that the justice provisions in the SBA are inadequate in some way? I can tell your Lordships that those of us who live around the legal profession know an awful lot of people who go and do cases and even sit as judges in those places, and that is not what they have found on the whole.
I would suggest that the Minister’s reply was insensitive—if I can be forgiven for using that word—and injudicious, and I invite the Government to consider it between now and the coming into law of this Bill. I am not going to press this to a Division tonight; I am not going to ask for the opinion of the House. But I feel a strong sense of dissatisfaction at the explanation, such as it is, that has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, hits on a sore point for independent reviewers past and present. At the instigation of my noble friend Lord Carlile, the Australians copied the job of independent reviewer—I think they call him or her the independent national security legislation monitor, which is even more indigestible. In doing so, they provided in their statute that reports be laid before Parliament within, I think, 15 sitting days of receipt by the Minister, an excellent discipline which I rather wish this amendment had followed.
I do not wish to seem ungracious. The independent review of powers, whose exercise is attended by secrecy, is a token of good faith on the part of government. It has proved its worth since the 1970s in this country in the context of counterterrorism law. I never doubted the good faith of the Government where this Bill is concerned. This amendment will make that good faith evident to others. It will help to dampen down the conspiracy theories that are so prevalent in this area and allow us to keep pace with Australia—and shortly, I hope, Ireland—in providing for independent oversight of almost the full range of national security laws.
However, gratitude has its limits. On first inspection, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looks even better, so if he divides the House, I shall vote for it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those contributions. There has been plenty of discussion throughout the passage of this Bill about the need for oversight of the state threats provisions in the Bill. The Government have welcomed this debate and agree on the need for the Bill to go further in this regard. The new provisions proposed by the Government do just that. I am very grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Purvis, on the Government’s movements in that regard.
I will not spend too long on this group but will set out briefly the provisions and how we expect the government provisions to work in practice. The amendments made by the Government create a single reviewer of state threats legislation to oversee the operation of the measures in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. This means that the reviewer will oversee not just the STPIM regime but the criminal offences and the exercise of police powers to ensure that their use is appropriate and proportionate.
The Government are also bringing oversight of the provisions of the state threats port stops power—Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019—within the remit of the new reviewer, meaning that all dedicated state threats legislation will be considered as part of a single reviewer’s role.
The Government have heard the argument that this role should in practice be carried out by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and can see the potential benefits this could bring. However, the Government are also conscious that the role will be of public interest and will therefore run an open competition for it, rather than appointing someone directly. Given the synergy between the roles, the Government will align the appointment cycle of this post with that of the terrorism reviewer. This will allow the role-holders to work closely together, but also provide the option of having one individual fill both roles, should that be beneficial.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his proposed amendment on this topic, which would achieve the same effect but also add Parts 4 and 5 to the remit of the reviewer. As mentioned in previous debates on this topic, an explicit commitment to oversight of Part 4 in the Bill is unnecessary, given it is already in the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I therefore suggest that there is nothing lacking from the present proposal. The provisions in Part 5 are supplementary to the rest of the Bill. The reviewer will be able to look at how Parts 1 and 2 operate in terms of commencement, regulation-making powers and territorial extent without the need explicitly to mention Part 5 in the powers for the reviewer. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendment 80 as tabled by Labour, and hope that colleagues across the House will welcome the government amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he might be able to address my point—which I remind him is the only point that I made?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I certainly addressed the point which he generously made praising the Government for our amendments. The point that he raised in relation to the Labour amendment, on the basis that there is no timeframe in the present amendments, is not valid in the Government’s submission, because the Labour amendment itself does not contain any binding requirement on the laying of reports. In our submission, that would remove a level of flexibility. In the area of national security, it is important not to hedge about these kinds of provisions with time requirements. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know that this is Report and we do not have to and fro, but I was making the point that it was an omission in the Government’s amendment. It is utterly open-ended as to whether the Secretary of State will lay the report from the independent reviewer before Parliament. I was seeking clarification from the Minister that that would not be the case.
Eurostar St Pancras: Border Control
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The United Kingdom operates juxtaposed immigration controls on the Eurostar routes. Therefore, our immigration checks are carried out prior to departure from the stations in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Passengers disembarking on arrival at St Pancras are not routinely subject to any further checks. French border checks take place outbound at St Pancras as part of the juxtaposed controls agreement.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer—as usual, blaming the French for everything. Eurostar says that, whoever’s fault it is and at whichever end, it is losing 30% of its traffic because the frontier controls are not working properly, four years after Brexit started. Is it not about time that the British and French Governments got their act together to allow people more free movement without being held up for hours and hours at St Pancras, Paris, Lille and Brussels?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I simply do not recognise the noble Lord’s characterisation. Border Force has deployed in Paris e-gates which, in the last 12 months, have processed more than 1.2 million passengers. The service standard of a wait of no longer than 25 minutes for Border Force officers has been maintained throughout that period. There are no delays which are the fault of Border Force.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the interests of increasing passenger flow and in the spirit of co-operation, would it not be possible to agree a single, jointly manned border control?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As my noble friend will recall, the agreement at the time of the implementation of the Channel Tunnel was an international one between the United Kingdom and the French Republic. The agreement was that we should have controls in the way that we do. As I say, they work well, and the arrangements are successful.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say why Eurostar at St Pancras has not been made a designated port for CITES? If a decision has been made, will it be reviewed? This was a particular and reasonable ask from the music sector which would be, or would have been, very helpful. At the moment, UK musicians touring in Europe need all the help they can get.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
St Pancras does not have infrastructure to process CITES goods. There is no red lane or counter, and no lock-up for detained goods. There is no need to overhaul the infrastructure at St Pancras to become a designated Border Force port for these purposes, but, of course, I am open to keeping the matter under review. The noble Earl can write to me, and I am sure we can look at this.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
The Minister says he does not recognise the difficult situation of going through the Eurostar terminal. As a declaration of interest, I often have occasion to do that, so I see for myself what it is like. The infrastructure both there and at Eurotunnel was built at a time when there was, and on the basis that there would be, completely free movement of citizens between the UK and the EU. Looking ahead, is the Minister aware that the EU, at some stage, wishes to introduce fingerprinting for people who travel from the UK through Dover, Eurostar or Eurotunnel? What plans are the Government making to deal with that, considering the additional time that this is going to take?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for raising that important point. We anticipate that future digitisation, both in the EU system and in our own electronic travel authorisation scheme, will accelerate the rate at which people can cross the border. We are implementing infrastructure in Paris which will be able to accelerate the rate at which people can pass through our e-gates.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Minister seems remarkably complacent in his answers. I invite him to travel more frequently on Eurostar to see the reality of the situation. Looking forward, the new EES will be accompanied next year by the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, or ETIAS. That will cost us €7 each to visit EU countries, as well as introducing new systems that require fingerprints. Can the Minister tell us what preparations the Government are making to expand capacity at border control for these more comprehensive checks and to raise public awareness of the new requirements?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the European scheme requires people in advance to obtain these authorisations and to deposit the biometrics. It is not anticipated that this will cause delays at the border at St Pancras, as far as I am aware. As I say, for the reasons I gave to the noble Viscount, the anticipation is that increased digitisation will lead to faster use of e-gates.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I was very interested in the Minister’s answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the recent answer regarding digitisation at ports. Does the Home Office intend to update the biometrics strategy, which was last updated in 2018, given some of the challenges with future-proofing these technologies and keeping up to date with AI and other technologies?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm to my noble friend that the Home Office takes seriously its duties to review the ethics of the biometrics that are retained. That is definitely on our radar as we progress the future border improvement scheme and the increasing use of digitisation to accelerate the rate at which people pass through ports and airports.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to do a bit of homework so that in three weeks’ time, when answering my Question on the Order Paper, we might have a detailed appraisal of the real challenges that will exist on the back of the questions that have just been asked?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I of course differ from the noble Lord on the quality of the research carried out by my officials: I am satisfied that I have correctly answered the questions.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, on speeding things up, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government want to deal with the asylum backlog by requiring applications in writing in English, using online translation tools? If so, is the Minister aware that where complex details and evidence on trafficking, for example, are machine translated, the frequency and severity of errors in this unregulated field is notoriously high, and should not be used without human oversight, such as the provision of professionally qualified public service interpreters?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that that question is a very long way from the Question about steps to increase the flow of passengers through the border control at Eurostar, and the Companion is quite clear on this topic. If the noble Baroness wishes to ask questions about this, she must do so in the correct way.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that it is not just at St Pancras that these extra checks are causing problems? Eurostar trains have not stopped at Stratford International or Ebbsfleet International for some time and, according to the train company, there is no prospect of their doing so because of the extra delays caused by these checks. Does the Minister regard the fact that people living in those areas must travel to St Pancras to get to Paris, Brussels or anywhere else as a triumph of Brexit, or shall we just put it down as something that the Foreign Office is really not conscious of in the first place?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. He is of course right that Eurostar trains no longer stop at those intermediate stations to take international passengers. I am not sure there is any reason from the Border Force perspective why they have not been reopened; as I understand it, these are matters for the train operating company. I am happy to look into the matter further, but that is the only answer I can give at this time.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister has given some very optimistic answers today, and I hope he is correct. What if he is wrong?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord will bring me back to answer questions about it.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the simple fact is that, yesterday, we saw a great achievement by the Prime Minister in the Windsor agreement. If there are further problems for Eurostar being able to operate up to capacity, does not the Minister think that there is now a better chance of getting a negotiated agreement with the French and other Governments on this issue?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I certainly agree with my noble friend. It is clear that we have an ongoing dialogue with the French on many issues, particularly in the department for which I appear. I entirely agree with what my noble friend says.
Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023
Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 January be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February