Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is a probing amendment which would require the Secretary of State to review the use of injunctions for protest-related activity. This is to probe how injunctions are used, what their effects are, how they interact with police powers and responsibilities, and the problems facing their use, such as securing them within a reasonable timescale. The purpose of the amendment is for the Secretary of State to set out a review of injunctions in the widest sense.

We also heard from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about her Amendments 114 and 115, which would create safeguards against corruption and abuse. They would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings and assessments of why any proceedings have been brought by the Secretary of State at public expense rather than by private companies. Such publication would occur each time an exercise of the power is considered and annually on an aggregate basis so that we can look at the overall effect.

My noble friend Lady Blower, who like me is not a lawyer, expressed incredulity about the situation, which I share. As a layman, it seems to me that the Clause 17 provisions give the Home Secretary powers to bring civil proceedings against protesters at public expense. This is a surprising set of circumstances, and my noble friend’s amendments are trying to get the Government to justify that on a continual basis, which seems entirely reasonable.

Amendments 110, 111 and 112 are also in this group. This clause provides that the Secretary of State can use new injunction powers where they reasonably believe the conditions under the clause are met. These amendments would delete “reasonably believes” and strengthen it to

“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.

Amendment 113 would provide that the Secretary of State may bring civil proceedings under this clause only if it is not reasonable or practicable for a party directly impacted by the activity to do so.

I move on to Amendment 114. The clause provides that, before bringing proceedings under it, the Secretary of State must consult “such persons (if any)” that they consider appropriate. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons if they do not consult, the outcome of any consultation, representations made to the Secretary of State and a reason why the Secretary of State should bring the proceedings at public expense, rather than another party.

As the Minister has heard, there is substantial scepticism about many aspects of Clause 17. There are a number of amendments here seeking to probe the Government’s intentions, and we may well return to this at a later stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, recently we have seen protestors blocking key national infrastructure, potentially causing delays to the supply of goods and services. Clause 17 provides a Secretary of State with a specific mechanism to apply for an injunction in civil proceedings where it is in the public interest to do so, and where the effect of the activity is to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure, or to access to essential goods or services, or to have a serious, adverse impact on the public.

Contrary to the speeches that we have heard from noble Lords opposite, there is no constitutional dubiety about such a measure. This provision will support better co-ordination between government, law enforcement, local authorities and private landowners in responding to serious disruptive behaviour. You may say, contrary to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said earlier, that these provisions mean that the hypothetical man on the Clapham omnibus might actually make it to Clapham, rather than being delayed by roadblocks caused impermissibly by protestors.

The proposal does not affect the right of local authorities or private landowners to apply for an injunction themselves, but gives a Secretary of State an additional route to act—urgently in some cases—where the potential impact is serious and widespread, and where there is a clear public interest to intervene. I seek to reassure noble Lords who have raised concerns regarding this measure that it will ultimately be a matter for the courts and our judges to consider whether or not to grant an injunction application. All that this provision does is simply to allow a Secretary of State to bring a claim and to apply for an injunction; ultimately, the decision on whether or not the injunction is made is one for the judge. As we always would, there would be careful consideration of any such application made by a Secretary of State, and that would involve careful consideration of the evidence provided by the Secretary of State in support of an application for an injunction. This is the ultimate legal safeguard on the use of the powers in Clauses 17 and 18.

As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I again reiterate that this measure provides an additional mechanism for a Secretary of State to intervene. This device would be most beneficial where protest activity targets multiple sites, and transcends local boundaries and the property of multiple entities. In such circumstances the potential impact would clearly be widespread, and the clear public interest would therefore be that injunctive proceedings are taken by the Secretary of State, rather than a series of separate private entities. It is not in every scenario that the Secretary of State’s power to seek an injunction would be utilised, and there is no doubt that the prevailing situation would remain, and businesses would have a major role to play in obtaining their own injunctions.

Turning to Clause 18, where an injunction has been granted by a court, with a power of arrest attached, the powers will support the police in taking action earlier to respond to those who engage in disruptive and dangerous forms of protest. Enabling the court to attach a power of arrest to such injunctions is key to allowing the police to act more quickly to prevent the disruption escalating. Where there is no ability for a power of arrest to be attached to the injunction, the applicant may be able to apply to the court for an arrest warrant where they believe that the perpetrator has breached the provisions of an injunction, as is the case for injunctions secured by private entities and natural persons. However, this creates an additional step in the process of enforcement which can affect the pace at which disruptive behaviour can be curtailed. As such, the power of arrest provision in Clause 18 can prove to be a highly important tool in the available responses to prevent serious disruption happening in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, before the Minister resumes his speech, may I ask him about a word he used? I do not know if I misheard—and I have quite a good vocabulary—but I think he used the word “dubiety”. Does that mean dubiousness?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Right, I will add that to my vocabulary.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their interventions. Turning to the question about transparency, we will certainly engage on that, and I appreciate it. It is always important that government actions are transparent. It is clearly an important public principle, and on that we agree.

As to corruption, in this context, it is really not a terribly likely hypothetical scenario. I say that because, if one were an ignoble baron seeking to pursue an injunction to preclude some sort of serious disruption, it is unlikely that the cost of pursuing an injunction would be sufficiently high to warrant seeking the assistance of the Secretary of State in bringing that injunction. It would be more likely that such costs would be borne by the company or person themselves, given the urgency and the much larger costs incurred by the disruption occurring. While I accept that there is a hypothetical concern, therefore, I find it unlikely in reality that such an envisioned scenario would eventuate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling Amendment 116. Let me start by saying that I, again, recognise the sentiment in this amendment. It is important that the Government intervene only in matters that are serious and proportionate to the public interest. However, I wish to remind noble Lords that causing nuisance or annoyance to the public can have a far-reaching impact when it occurs on a widespread scale. The recent protests targeting the M25 have shown just that. Furthermore, while a Secretary of State may apply for the power of arrest to be attached to an injunction, it is for the courts to decide whether or not this is an appropriate measure.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Again, I understand and have considered the need for scrutiny and transparency, as I touched on earlier, and therefore I entirely understand the logic of the tabling of that amendment. None the less, it is the Government’s view that while a review is not needed to ensure that activity relating to these provisions is necessary, it is important that transparency is carefully considered, and I will ensure that that is done.

There are already several clear provisions in the Bill that serve to ensure that the use of these powers by a Secretary of State will be subject to scrutiny and safeguards. As has already been noted, of course, in Clause 17(5) there is a requirement for consultation as may be appropriate ahead of initiating civil proceedings. Moreover, as we have already touched on, civil proceedings can be issued in the interest of the public only when it is considered expedient to do so in the judgment of the judiciary hearing the claim. As I have already committed to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I will nevertheless consider what further clarity could be provided on the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might seek to initiate such proceedings. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. If I can try and get the sense of the House, we on this side feel that this is constitutionally dubious, potentially providing opportunities for corruption, and that it is a very serious step to allow the Secretary of State to apply for an injunction to prevent a protest. On the government side, the Minister thinks it is reasonable if lots of people are affected—different organisations, private and public—and that it would be expedient for the Secretary of State to represent all parties and apply for an injunction on their behalf. Therefore, there is a clear difference of opinion as to whether we are satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards, as opposed to the Minister being satisfied that is the case. As the Minister reflects on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, we too will reflect on what the Minister has said, and we will no doubt return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 110.

Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

And worse. Well, not quite worse, but I have done similar things, and that is the price you pay for democracy. Where you draw the line —before anyone takes me on, I suggest that the Just Stop Oil protesters have acted disproportionately—is an interesting debate and discussion to have, and the noble and learned Lord has done the Chamber great credit by bring it forward.

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

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate on this set of amendments. Before I begin, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is not present in her place, in respect of the comments made at the end of group 1, particularly those relating to the reasonable excuse defence being available before arrest and the recent specific case of the arrest of the journalist Charlotte Lynch. I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Sharpe: this was clearly wrong and should not have happened. Hertfordshire Constabulary has confirmed that additional measures are now in place to ensure that legitimate media are able to do their jobs.

More generally, I make clear that, to arrest someone, the police need to have reasonable grounds to suspect that they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Of course, we would expect the police to consider the likelihood of someone having a reasonable excuse when making arrest decisions. But the police must be able to intervene early to deal with serious disruption, without having to go through bureaucratic hurdles.

Turning to the group at hand, we have already discussed the reasonable excuse defence at some length today, and I will not detain noble Lords for too much longer. Specifically in relation to Amendments 9 and 10, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that trampling on the rights of the public in the name of environmental activism is not by default a reasonable excuse for locking on; nor does legitimate activity by the highly regulated energy sector constitute a criminal offence.

Turning to perhaps the most interesting part of the recent debate—regarding Amendments 11, 30, 41, 57 and 63—I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his amendments, which seek to ensure that the reasonable excuse defence is assessed by the courts with reference to an individual’s direct intentions, rather than with reference to any type of public interest they claim to be pursuing through an offence. This would prevent someone using an argument of public interest as a reasonable excuse for committing an offence. I also thank him for his excellent contribution to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly, and I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is important that we have clarity because this is clearly a very important point. In the Bill, the pursuit of lawful and legitimate industrial action constitutes a lawful exercise of that right and is not criminalised. However, that provision in the Bill does not read across, if you like, to all the other offences, and in particular is not found in any tunnelling offence. That is the point where I differ from the speech the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave moments ago. The reason for that—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He just said that, in other parts of the Bill, somebody engaged in a trade dispute is not criminalised by the offences contained in this Bill. However, we had a discussion in the Minister’s absence about the fact that it was a reasonable excuse defence once charged. In other words, somebody engaged in a trade dispute could be arrested, detained and charged by the police, which I would describe as being treated as a criminal, and it is only at the point after a charge and an appearance at a court that this defence is available. I guess that the Minister is technically right, in that somebody is not criminalised until they are convicted by a court, but we are really arguing semantics here. So the way that the Minister expressed himself—saying that, effectively, somebody involved in a trade dispute would not be in danger from the provisions of the Bill—is not actually accurate.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In Clause 7, “Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure”, one can see that, in subsection (2), “a defence” is provided

“for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that … (b) the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.”

I am sure the noble Lord can see how the protection for the right to be involved in a trade dispute is protected by that drafting—and that is certainly the clear intention of the Government.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that you cannot lock on in the furtherance of a trade dispute but you can picket in the furtherance of a trade dispute?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the provisions of the locking-on offence do not expressly contain the same provision. Therefore, it is correct to say that the Bill envisages a defence for the involvement in industrial disputes in relation to key national infrastructure, but there is no need for such a like provision in respect of locking on. I will obviously clarify that with my officials and respond to the noble Lord in on that.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I just seek some clarification. In response to the speech I made earlier about picketing, and since there is no intention in Amendment 60 to expand picketing, or any rights in relation to picketing, is the Minister therefore saying that, on everything that has been permitted by law in terms of picketing—which is already hedged with quite a lot of regulation and requirements—there is no intention in this Bill to make any alteration to the lawful carrying out of picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute? I believe that is what I am hearing the Minister say, and I hope that is the case.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Can I confirm with my officials and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that point? My understanding is that that is so, but I want to check that before I confirm.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

While the Minister is conferring with his officials, can he suggest to them that they look at Clause1(1) and put in some new words? After

“A person commits an offence if”,


he should add “without reasonable excuse”, if (a) they do this, (b) they do that and (c) they do the other. Then he should get rid of subsection (2).

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, and I will certainly ask them.

I think that I had reached Amendment 61. It similarly seeks to strengthen the defences available. As I have said already, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is very specific to each particular incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant, who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts, is required to prove them.

I turn lastly to Amendments 56 and 62, which seek to make it an explicit requirement for the police and courts to pay regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR when determining whether someone has a reasonable excuse for the offences of obstructing major transport works and interference with key national infrastructure. Although I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not see it as being necessary. It is of course right that the courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with the ECHR by reason of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, there is already legislative protection for the consideration of such rights, and it is not necessary to repeat that in this Bill.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Can I just seek clarification on what the Minister said earlier about tunnels not constructed by protesters and people causing serious disruption in those tunnels? My understanding is that the Minister is saying, “Don’t worry, trust the police.” I know that that is what the legislation says about someone causing serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, maybe London Underground workers operating a picket line in a tunnel constructed by London Underground: “Don’t worry about it, the police are reasonable people; they wouldn’t use the law in that way and, at the end of the day, the courts wouldn’t convict.” However, as the journalist who was trying to report on a protest found—the case that the Minister started his remarks with—we are still faced with the possibility of being arrested and detained for five hours by the police and of the police being unreasonable; that is by their own admission now. It seems an onerous experience for a completely innocent person to go through that, and to have to rely on the fact that, at the end of the day, the courts will not convict them, when they have been completely innocent from the start.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The short answer is that these cases are always going to be fact-specific. If there was a serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, I suspect that there would potentially be many offences being committed other than those under this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe has already said, this situation will be considered and we will come back to the noble Lord. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I enjoyed the critique of reasonable defence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I was delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has come into the debate. However, I ask both of them not to be helpful to the Government—I just want to vote against everything in this Bill and they are making it difficult.

Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that short debate, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her warm welcome to this Committee. It has been a fascinating exercise to conduct my first Committee stage.

The general intention of this group of amendments is to reduce the maximum fines and the maximum sentences listed in Clauses 1 to 8. The maximum fines and sentences attached to these offences reflect, in the view of the Government, the serious harm and disruption that can be caused by these actions. It may be helpful if I set out just one example of that harm for the Committee. During the targeted and reckless activity by Just Stop Oil in August 2022, protesters dug two tunnels in an attempt to disrupt access to an oil terminal in Essex. This particularly dangerous protest tactic not only disrupted the operation of the terminal but had a knock-on impact on many others. First, it led to full and partial road closures impacting the public, local and private businesses and the council. Secondly, it resulted in ambulances and fire and rescue services being on standby due to the risk of collapse in the tunnel, thereby impacting on availability of those emergency services. Thirdly, it consumed a huge amount of police resources in responding to the operation, impacting on the police as well as the public, as officers had to be diverted from other duties.

Given this example and countless others, the maximum sentences and fines set out in the Bill are not only proportionate to the harm and disruption caused but necessary. It is worth saying that these are maximum sentences and it is plainly not the case that every person convicted under these offences will be given these sentences and penalties. Indeed, it is right to say that the maximum penalties are used only in the most egregious cases. The courts will consider the appropriate penalty in each case and, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, they will be considered on a case-by-case basis. For these fundamental reasons, I therefore respectfully disagree with these amendments and ask that Amendment 12 be withdrawn.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Will the Minister address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and I raised about how consistency in the levels of fines being imposed, particularly by lay magistrates’ Benches, will be achieved when there is absolutely no guidance in the legislation on the level of fine that should be imposed?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is, of course, frequently the case in legislation that there is no guidance on the face of the Bill as to the likely sentences that are imposed. It is very common for there to be sentencing guidelines formulated in the usual way by the judiciary. No doubt that is what will happen in relation to these offences. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will agree, these are the guidelines to which prosecutors routinely refer the court before the court passes sentence.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this all-too-sparse and short, but very important, debate about maximum sentences for new offences that are incredibly controversial. To address the Minister’s response directly, I am concerned that a briefing pattern is developing in the course of this Committee, where the Minister is given an example of something that protesters did that caused a lot of disruption and harm and so on, but we have yet to really understand why existing criminal law is not capable of addressing that. What is not being offered to the Committee—and perhaps not being advised to Ministers—is where the need is, given the scale of the public order statute book as it is. Within that, specific to this group, we are not being given a picture of where these offences sit in the hierarchy of criminal offences and criminal sentences.

Instead, we are being given a story about something outrageous that some protesters did and told that this is why the whole Bill is justified. We really need to get into a bit more specificity when we are playing with the criminal statute book and potentially sending people to prison or bankrupting them and so on. That is no disrespect to the Minister, his noble friend, his colleagues, or even his advisers. What is more traditional—certainly in this place—is that when offences are offered, and sentences to go with them, we are given a picture of where they sit within the current ecosystem of the criminal law; then we can really drill down into both the formulation of the offence and the sentence. People who disagree with me and, perhaps, welcome the offences, can nonetheless improve them and make sure that they are proportionate in their formulation and sentencing.

That has not happened in this debate, and it really must happen for us to do our duty as a Committee. That really must start to happen during the passage of this Bill, and it certainly will have to happen on Report. Concerns about incarceration, bankruptcy and maximum sentences, as well as fundamental concerns about the formulation of the offences themselves and even prior concerns about the need for them, are going to keep coming, group after group, in this Committee, and they will come again as we go down the road of consideration. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will take that in good part. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the provision of appropriate accommodation for asylum seekers after their departure from the Manston immigration centre.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his Question. We are committed to working closely with communities and stakeholders to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are housed in safe, secure and suitable accommodation. All appropriate options are being explored to ensure that suitable accommodation is secured as quickly as is necessary, and hotels are one element.

It may assist the noble Lord to know how the system works in terms of the steps of allocating accommodation. Clearly, the Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to provide accommodation support to destitute asylum seekers. At Manston this appears to be the large majority of those arriving in small boats. They are housed at Manston for as short a period as possible, then sent to ring-fenced hotel accommodation and on to other hotel accommodation. Once their application—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

I am not sure whether the Minister has finished his reply. Does he understand that when the Home Secretary uses language about an “invasion” and the Immigration Minister writes that “‘Hotel Britain’ must end”, these are incendiary utterances that might have been calculated to inflame hard-right hatred of refugees? Is he aware that, following the exposure of the squalid and dangerous overcrowding at Manston, the Home Office has abandoned asylum seekers to sleep rough on pavements in London, with no warm clothes or money? Is it not the case that the Home Office has been dumping asylum seekers, with no forewarning and no information, on councils already struggling to house people in need, or on homelessness charities, or leaving them in limbo in hotels for apparently interminable periods? How do these realities square with his claim to noble Lords that the mission of the Home Office is

“to treat all who come to our country with care and compassion”?—[Official Report, 9/11/22; col. 643.]

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said in my earlier Answer, we are required to provide support and accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are pending. Given the current pressing need to move people from Manston, we are necessarily considering all possible options and acting to secure suitable accommodation at pace. We endeavour to notify as early as possible the local authorities where the accommodation is located. The noble Lord will appreciate that this is an unprecedented situation that has required very quick action by Home Office officials.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that asylum seekers are not alien invaders to these shores but innocent people who are the victims of horrendous conflict in different parts of the world, such as the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ukraine and so many other places? Does he agree that it is only right that we extend hospitality to them?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with part of what the noble Lord says. Obviously, it is important that all those who come to seek asylum in the UK have the opportunity to have their applications considered, and that all those who are genuine asylum seekers are of course afforded all that this country can offer by way of protection. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the recent more productive talks with our French friends and allies. Has consideration been given to building, at joint expense but with a considerable amount from us, decent hostel-type accommodation in France, where the British officials who are now assessing applications can work and where people can be given a proper assessment and clean living conditions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what my noble friend says. Clearly, the recently concluded negotiations with the French concerned the use of Border Force officials within the French detection mechanism on the French coast, but I will certainly take back my noble friend’s suggestion to the Home Office.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I was at Manston last week and I have two questions. First, how many of the people currently at Manston have been there longer than 24 hours, which is the designated time? Secondly, the Minister said that the Home Office would endeavour to inform local authorities. I was in Oxford last week, where I was told that 200 people had arrived from Manston and there had not been a word of warning or consultation with the local authority.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I, too, was at Manston last week and I am sure that he will share my admiration for the hard work of the staff at Manston in very difficult circumstances. I can assure the noble Lord that the current figure for those at Manston as of 8 am this morning was 1,428. I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Lord information about the longest period of any person detained there. I will endeavour to find that information and write to the noble Lord. On the noble Lord’s Oxford question, I am afraid I do not know the answer but I will find out and write to him.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, of course we are delighted at the hard work that the people at Manston are putting into this, but there is a very serious problem indeed. Just a few days ago, I had an email from one of my clergy who said that, during the week, large numbers of asylum seekers were moved in, without any warning to the local authority or local partners, and it has caused chaos. That means not only that we do not have the statutory support in place but that voluntary groups such as churches, which are trying to offer support, simply have no warning. Will he go back to his officials? We simply need to get the communication right and we will all work with the Government and other partners to try to solve this very difficult, agonising problem.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate. The issues surrounding the allocation of accommodation are certainly the subject of concentrated effort by Home Office officials, and it is the intention to improve notification. I add that we are incredibly grateful for the activities of church groups and others who help provide assistance to those accommodated in hotels.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, it appears, worryingly, that the Home Office is still not talking to the directors of public health in local areas receiving people from Manston. On 1 November, the Minister said that there were four cases of diphtheria. I am hearing that there are now nearly 40 cases, and we know that people are not being tested as they leave Manston. The Minister offered to write to me before; will he now agree to meet to discuss this urgent health issue?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My understanding is that there are 12 diphtheria cases, but I will certainly make further inquiries in light of that. I can assure the noble Baroness that healthcare in contingency asylum accommodation is a priority. Those contracted to the Home Office endeavour to ensure that people accommodated in hotels or other contingency accommodation are signposted to GP practices, and there is local health screening in most cases.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain to me how it is possible to regard people coming from Albania, which is a stable and democratic country, as asylum seekers, and how much is it costing the taxpayer to put these people up in hotels?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, a large number of those crossing are from Albania. It is understood that around 12,000 of those who have crossed this year have been from there, and it is right to say that Albania is a safe country. Migrants are entitled to avail of the asylum application process and those applications are considered in accordance with the procedure as it currently stands. This matter clearly needs to be considered and is being considered.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation and Safeguarding

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Manston is a catastrophic failure of government policy. Was the local Conservative MP not right when he said it was “wholly avoidable”? Can the Minister explain how it was possible that the Government allowed the numbers to rise to more than 4,000? Was legal advice ignored? The numbers at Manston are now reduced, but what consultation is taking place with local authorities about the use of hotels? How are families and children to be kept safe? For example, will DBS checks be made on all staff so that we can ensure that families and children are safe and housed appropriately?

The Government need to get a grip. They need a proper plan and they need to sort out the administration, which is in chaos, as we saw again today, with asylum applications having risen by more than 305% in the last five years and excessive lengths of time before any decision is made. If the Government cannot sort out the administration, they will not sort out any problem. Instead of firefighting, the Government need to get a grip.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government have got a grip; the Labour Party has no plan. I am glad to report to the House that the numbers at Manston have fallen since this Answer was given in the House of Commons. There are now some 1,147 people held at Manston, as at 8 am today, and the numbers are continuing to decline. Every effort is being made by Home Office staff to rectify the position that has occurred. I am incredibly grateful for all the hard work they have done in very difficult circumstances.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place said the crisis at Manston was due to an “unprecedented strain” on the immigration system and that the Government inherited a broken immigration system. My understanding is that in 2002 the UK received more than 80,000 asylum claims and in 2021 it was fewer than 50,000, so the situation is not unprecedented. In 2011, the backlog of asylum claims was 11,000, and it is now 118,000. In 2014, 85% of initial decisions were made within six months, but the figure is now 5%. The system was not broken then but it is now. Will the noble Lord ask the Minister in the other place to correct the record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. No error was made by Mr Jenrick when he addressed the other place. He was correct to say that the conditions facing the border staff at Manston are unprecedented. We have never had this number of unlawful crossings of the channel. The situation has not been faced before. As the noble Lord rightly observes, there is a problem with the processing of asylum claims. Every effort is being made to accelerate the pace at which asylum claims are resolved. It is clear that there is a backlog, and work is being carried out at pace to develop a method by which that backlog can be reduced.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am not a member of Labour but I resent that snipe from the Dispatch Box. It is not appropriate here. We are not a student debating society; we are not even the Commons. We respect each other so, please, no more snipes like that.

Secondly, back in July a report said that detention was already often for much longer than 24 hours and that there was overcrowding. Why did the Government not act then? They clearly did not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The height of the numbers at Manston was on 30 October. The Government acted as rapidly as they could from that date to reduce the numbers held. They reflected the conditions and the numbers crossing, which therefore led to an increase in the numbers held for processing at Manston. Clearly, the Government’s intention is to return Manston wholly to a processing facility not performing any accommodation function.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that however difficult this all is, these are people? Many are people in considerable difficulties. Therefore, for them to have to wait the length of time they are now waiting is, frankly, unacceptable. Also, does he agree that the language used should be the language of compassion, not of attack? Will he undertake to say to the Home Secretary that we want to hear voices showing that she understands that these are people and we ought to care about them?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. The principal mission for the Home Office in respect of these people is to treat all who come to our country with care and compassion, to seek to understand why they have come and then to treat their asylum claims accordingly. I could not agree more with my noble friend.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the sage counsel from the Minister’s noble friend, if the Minister were an asylum seeker in a detention facility, perhaps from a war-torn part of the world, how would he feel to hear the Home Secretary arriving not by a discreet route but via a military helicopter?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness refers to the use of the Chinook by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The use of that helicopter was so that she could see the operations in the channel; it was not for any purpose of sending some sort of message to those residing at Manston. Clearly, it was reasonable given the time available and the items that had to be viewed by the Home Secretary. It is very important that my right honourable friend has every opportunity to see the whole system, so that she understands and can bring forward solutions.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that Manston will now remain a 24-hour facility only, in a way that can be scaled up if necessary, and that no children are detained there at all—or, at least, are not detained with adults who they do not know?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office takes very seriously its responsibility towards unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It seeks to place them into separate accommodation as early as can be achieved. As I say, the welfare of children is among its first priorities.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, despite what the Minister has just said, there is growing concern among civil society groups about what is happening to children caught up in this asylum mess. Can the Minister say exactly what safeguarding mechanisms are in place to protect these children, and to ensure that no child is wrongly classified and treated as an adult?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Clearly, every person who arrives at Manston and says that their age is below 18 is the subject of an age assessment—that is, a neutral evaluation of that status. If they are believed to be children then they are treated, as I say, as a key priority for the Home Office and housed in special hotels, which are secure and provide the necessary support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, we now know that the far-right attack committed by firebombing a migration centre in Dover was done by a man inspired by far-right extremism. Can my noble friend assure this House that conversations are taking place within the Home Office, and government generally, advising colleagues that sensationalist language from political leaders leads to real consequences and that they should refrain from using it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, I agree with the noble Baroness that sensationalist language should be avoided. I am afraid that, at this stage, I cannot comment further on the firebomb attack, which is obviously still the subject of investigation by the police.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the hotels and the special situation that unaccompanied minors are being kept in. But the fact is that they are being kept in these hotels with security guards outside for many months, with very little support. A report last month made it clear that they get no education, informal or formal, while they are in those hotels. Is the Minister satisfied with that?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s question was predicated on the fact that nobody in the hotels was allowed to leave but that is not the case. Forgive me if I misunderstood her question. As I say, significant steps are clearly taken to afford facilities for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to inform her about the education opportunities. I am afraid I do not have that information immediately to hand.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench place. Whatever way you look at the appalling conditions at the Manston processing site, with overcrowding, disease and disorder, the conclusion is that it is the fault of this Government, whether because of the woeful track record in processing asylum claims or the alleged failure to commission accommodation from which asylum seekers can be moved on from Manston. That, coupled with the reckless rhetoric used by the Home Secretary and the Government towards asylum seekers, fuels a false narrative that results in the kind of attack that we saw at Western Jet Foil, which is now being treated as a terrorist incident.

Asylum claims in the UK are almost half what they were 20 years ago: over 80,000 asylum claims were made in 2002, and just over 40,000 in 2021. There is currently a 20-week wait just to register an asylum claim and, on average, over 400 days before an initial decision is made. At the end of March, 89,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, which is quadruple the number in 2016.

The local MP alleged on the “Today” programme on Monday that the overcrowding at Manston was deliberate, as the Home Office had decided not to book more hotel rooms to accommodate asylum seekers. Sir Roger Gale MP today repeated his claim that it was a failure of the Home Office to commission move-on accommodation, despite what the Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place. Can the Minister confirm who is telling the truth?

Yesterday, the Telegraph quoted a Minister who said that Suella Braverman blocked the use of hotel rooms for migrants to “process them quickly”. Mark Spencer MP, the Farming Minister, when asked about the report that Ms Braverman had “put the block” on hotel rooms being used for those arriving on British shores, told Sky News that it was

“because she wants to process them quickly”.

We have the local MP and the Farming Minister both saying that Ms Braverman had put a block on hotel rooms, while the Home Secretary herself said that she had not. Who out of those Government Ministers, senior Conservative MPs and the Home Secretary is telling the truth?

The overwhelming majority of those who have been crossing the Channel in small boats in recent years have been genuine asylum seekers—not because I say so but because the overwhelming majority have been granted asylum status by the Home Office. So why is the Home Office calling those genuine refugees “illegal migrants”, when clearly they are not? Even the Home Office website, announcing the Manston facility, describes it as a

“processing site for illegal migrants”.

That was in December 2021, even before the Nationality and Borders Act. Meanwhile, an Ipsos MORI poll says that only 10% of British people think that immigration is the number one problem facing the UK.

Yesterday, we had the Home Secretary describe those crossing the Channel in small boats as an “invasion”. Not only is that outrageously dangerous rhetoric, particularly when the world is dealing with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, but this morning we had the Immigration Minister saying that politicians had to be careful in the words they used. Which Minister does the noble Lord agree with—the Immigration Minister or the Home Secretary?

The Conservative Party has had seven years in government when it has been in sole control of our borders. As the Home Secretary herself has said, the asylum system in the UK is broken. Does not the Minister agree that seven years is more than long enough to repair any broken system, and therefore it is time that this Government made way for a Government who can mend it?

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

Thank you, my Lords. I shall deal first with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. In relation to the attack on Western Jet Foil, I can confirm that Counter Terrorism Policing South East has now taken the lead from Kent Police in investigating the incident. Detectives have worked hard to establish the exact circumstances, including the motivation surrounding this incident, which happened at 10.20 am on Sunday. During the incident, as noble Lords will know, a number of crude incendiary devices were thrown outside Western Jet Foil and into the premises by a man who arrived at the scene alone in a car. The suspect’s vehicle was quickly located nearby, and the man was found dead inside; he has since been identified as Andrew Leak, aged 66, from High Wycombe.

What appears clear is that this despicable offence was targeted and likely to be driven by some form of hate-filled grievance, although this may not necessarily meet the threshold of terrorism. At this point, the incident has not been declared a terrorist incident, but it is being kept under review as the investigation progresses. A search warrant was carried out at the property at High Wycombe on Monday 31 October, and a number of items of interest were recovered, including digital media devices, which are being examined as quickly as possible.

Due to the nature of the evidence gathered so far, it is clear that officers with specialist knowledge, resources and experiences are best placed to lead this work to determine the motivating factors. There is nothing currently to suggest that the man involved was working alongside anyone else and there is not believed to be any wider threat to the community in the High Wycombe area or in Dover. Detective Chief Superintendent Olly Wright, head of the CTPSE, said:

“This was a traumatic incident for everyone involved, and the wider community and we’re working hard to establish what led to the events on Sunday morning.”


It is right to give space for these investigations to reach their conclusion and it would be inappropriate to second-guess any conclusions at this stage. I echo the thanks given yesterday in the other place for the work of Border Force and the first responders to this appalling incident.

I turn to the second question raised by the noble Lord, about conditions at Manston today. There were 3,629 people at Manston as of this morning. There were no arrivals today, due to the weather in the channel, and conditions are stable and improved routinely, as the Home Secretary set out in the other place in her Statement. Some 332 migrants were rehoused in alternative accommodation today and it is hoped that further transfers will be possible during the course of the week. I can confirm in relation to the other question that the noble Lord asked me, about the health of the people detained at Manston, that there were four cases of diphtheria. Those people have been treated and cases of various skin conditions have also been addressed. The healthcare provided at Manston is first class and, indeed, for many of the people detained at Manston, it is the first time they have had medical intervention for a very long time. The conditions being identified are ones that have clearly been prevalent prior to their crossing the channel, and it is excellent that the medical staff at Manston are able to provide that care for those people.

On the question of waiting times for asylum processing, it is correct that, as the Home Secretary said in the other place yesterday, this system is approaching its breaking point and needs some serious intervention. That is precisely what this Government will do. The cause of this is the unprecedented number of illegal crossings of the channel to the United Kingdom, which has put a system designed for many fewer migrants under extreme pressure. The staff of Border Force and of the Home Office more generally are working at pace to secure a resolution to these asylum claims and to expedite the conclusions of their applications.

The noble Lord asked me whether we need to consider other options. I am, of course, happy to confirm that co-operation with the French is key to addressing this issue. Already since the start of the year, co-operation with the French has stopped more than 29,000 illegal crossings, and joint work with France continues. An important aspect of our response to illegal migration is with the French doubling the numbers patrolling the beaches. That work and certain negotiations with France will continue in an attempt to reduce the numbers crossing the channel, particularly during these very dangerous winter months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend to his responsibilities. Does he recognise the inconvenient truth that it is almost impossible—perhaps entirely so—to deal with this issue without agreement with France going far beyond the level of co-operation to which he referred? Will he draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the agreement reached with France in 1995, under which it agreed to take back those who illegally entered the United Kingdom from France—they enter illegally, even if they subsequently claim asylum—and which it honoured?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me and my department of that very valuable agreement. Certainly, the best solution to this problem would be an agreement with France under which it accepted the return of everyone who crosses the channel. There could be no stronger deterrent to crossing it. I will of course encourage officials to look at the agreement made in 1995 and see what steps can be taken to revive it.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, initiation rites are pretty tough in some cultures, but none the less I too welcome the Minister to his place. I declare an interest as a fellow member of 39 Essex Chambers, where lawyers act for and against the Government without demonising each other. Of course, the demonisation of their most vulnerable clients is worse. Did the Minister see the comments by the very well-respected charity, HOPE not hate? Its policy director said:

“The terrible incident at Dover does not stand in isolation. It is the result of repeated demonisation … of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees by the government and by the media.”


As an excellent lawyer, the Minister will know that, by definition, because of the non-penalisation doctrine in the refugee convention, a crossing that eventually results in refugee status was never an illegal crossing. Finally, does the Minister agree that it is not helpful or appropriate to refer to the current refugee crisis as an “invasion” of our south coast?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. She is right to observe that we have that common interest in terms of our professional origins. I imagine her question relates to the question posed in perhaps more clear terms by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the use of the word “invasion” by the Home Secretary. I take the view that the expression the Home Secretary used was intended to—and did—convey the scale and challenge we face as a country from the numbers crossing the channel. Millions of people across this country are rightly concerned about that and want to know that we have a robust but secure asylum system. A significant proportion of those arriving on our shores are economic migrants, many from countries such as Albania. A quarter of all migrants this year came from Albania, which is demonstrably a safe country. The Home Secretary and the entire ministerial team will see what they can do to bear down on those numbers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Statement says that 12,000 people have arrived at both Manston and Western Jet Foil since Ms Braverman became Home Secretary in September, and 9,500 have already been transferred out. As the Minister mentioned, there have been confirmed cases of diphtheria and other infectious diseases at the very overcrowded Manston centre in the last month. Diphtheria is a notifiable disease under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and directors of public health and their local authorities have statutory duties to manage notifiable disease outbreaks, including tracking, testing and tracing not just those with the disease but their contacts. Can the Minister explain why the Home Office has refused to work directly with directors of public health and their local authorities in the areas receiving these asylum seekers from Manston, despite repeated requests?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I do not have the answer, so I will find out what it is and write to her.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords, those of us who have had the misfortune to be an MP representing a detention centre will know that the detention estate has had failings for many years. One of those is that the appeals rate has rested at about 42% against the Government for many years; it was that last year as well. Does the Minister not think that, if the Government were able to make the right decisions on asylum requests in the first place, we would have fewer people in the detention estate and would be making quicker decisions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. Clearly, the process for considering asylum decisions needs improvement—that is something we are committed to—and the appeal rate clearly reflects some mistaken decision-making. However, it is right to say that certain cases on appeal will consider matters that were not before the original decision-maker, so those cases do not reflect a particular error. The statistic itself does not suggest entirely a situation which is indicative of flawed decision-making by Home Office officials. However, as I say, this is an area on which we shall work.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister—notwithstanding the fact that he is a lawyer—because he went to a Scottish university, so he must be okay. However, he must appreciate that in 12 years of a Tory Government we have had a lot of rhetoric and promises but very little practical action, except for gimmicks such as the flights to Rwanda that have never taken place. Everything seems to be done to appease Nigel Farage and his cohort, unfortunately, and the awful racists who surround him. To ask the Minister a specific question, he said that he could not have anticipated the huge influx of immigrants, refugees and migrants across the channel. Why not? Why could it not have been anticipated? What are the Government doing now to anticipate what will happen in the future? The Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, said on the radio this morning that he expected the figure would be 50,000 by the end of the year. How does he know that? What are the Government doing to try to mitigate that and reduce the numbers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The answer to that, as the noble Lord well knows, is to try to produce policies which deter people from seeking to attempt the dangerous channel crossing. That is precisely why we have entered into this agreement with the Government of Rwanda: to seek to disincentivise people from crossing the channel.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

It is not working.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that it is not working; the point is that it has not had the chance to work because of the prevailing legal challenge. Once the barriers to the policy are removed and it starts to work, we will see the number of people attempting to cross the channel dropping.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I add my welcome to the Minister. On the issue of disincentives, there has been speculation that the conditions at Manston are being kept deliberately bad as a disincentive. Could the Minister be categorical that the Government would never do that on ethical grounds, and that they recognise that that would not prove an adequate disincentive in any case?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard about the conditions suffered by people held in these establishments. I cannot help thinking that life must be very difficult for the staff who work there. I imagine that all their instincts are to do their very best by those who are detained or who are there under any other category. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what support is being given to staff to cope with this situation.

Quite separately, in his response to the question about the appeal rate, making the point that issues come up on appeal that had not been considered in the initial application, would he not agree that that may be indicative of a failure of the casework, a lack of curiosity and a failure to raise the right questions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I entirely share her concern for the staff at Manston and Western Jet Foil who have to work in difficult conditions. I have made a point of ensuring that officials are fully alive to these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that the Home Secretary had yet to visit Manston. As I understand it, she is going to visit later this week, and I can reassure the House that I am visiting next week. I have absolutely no doubt that, on all of those visits, the present concerns of the staff will be taken into account.

As I understood it, the noble Baroness’s question in relation to appeals effectively asked whether this showed a failure by decision-makers to take into account matters which had come to light later. That is not routinely the case. Usually what happens is that a fresh claim is advanced by the applicant and/or there is a fresh set of facts; for example, the development of a subsequent relationship.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen over the last couple of days what seems to me to be an almost obsessional pursuit of the Home Secretary, who is dealing with a series of extremely difficult, substantive problems. It is a pursuit on the basis of leaks, anonymous briefings and the usual oversensitivity about words—though if we are going to be sensitive about words, I suggest that “racist” is one that should not be used without a degree of caution. Does the Minister condemn this practice of leaking against a sitting Minister? Does he agree that what the British people want the Home Secretary and the department to do is get on with solving the substantive problem, which means making the country less attractive to illegal migrants, looking at the international legal framework in which we are operating and improving the performance of his department?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. It is very important that the Home Secretary is able, without unnecessary distraction, to get on with the job of resolving this very difficult situation. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the support he has expressed for the Home Secretary. I am sure that this issue will be front and centre of all her decision-making.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, what we have seen reported in the media is shocking—diphtheria, scabies and horrific conditions at the site. The Government have been in power for 12 years and we have had about seven Home Secretaries. What is going to happen next? It is not as though this is a new problem. The Government have had many years to solve it. Repeated Bills and Acts of Parliament, meetings with the French and all sorts of things have been going on, but here we are and the problem is getting worse and worse. I am sure that the noble Lord is shocked by that as well. What is going to happen now to make things better? The Government have had a very long time to sort this out.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will recall, when Sajid Javid was the Home Secretary, only some five years ago, the number of people crossing in small boats was only 200. The problem has become significantly worsened by the success of Border Force in closing off other methods of illegal entry. That perhaps puts in context the fact that we now anticipate 40,000 people crossing the channel—that is half the size of the British Army. This is a problem of great seriousness which requires a reaction that needs to be commensurate with the problem we are now facing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I should have said that I welcome the noble Lord to his new position and wish him well.

50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Popat for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords for their truly inspiring contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted, the number of noble Lords contributing today itself demonstrates the importance of this topic. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, for welcoming me to my place. I look forward to debating the wider immigration issues, to which they referred, in the weeks and months to come.

Noble Lords will know that this debate was postponed from around the 50th anniversary of the first Ugandan Asians arriving in the UK, following the death of Her late Majesty the Queen, but I am glad that we have had chance to recognise this, and it feels just as apt during the week of Diwali.

As my noble friend Lord Popat reflected, I pay tribute to the late Lord Sheik, raised in Uganda before coming to the United Kingdom in 1962, who spoke so movingly in 2012 about his own family’s history in Uganda and of friends who came following the expulsion in 1972. He is a much-missed colleague, and all our thoughts are with his friends and family. I also pay tribute to those who came before me in this and the other place who paved the way for future generations, which has led us to having the UK’s first Prime Minister of not only Indian but east African descent.

My noble friend Lord Popat is right to highlight our positive relationship with Uganda, and I welcome the high commissioner to the House today. The UK and Uganda have a close relationship. We want Uganda to become more democratic, prosperous and resilient, with reduced poverty, and to continue to play a positive international and regional role. That is why UK aid supports the most vulnerable in Uganda, by creating jobs and helping to meet urgent health and education needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was right to reference the recent Ugandan successes. As has been raised today, 50 years ago we were in a very different place. In August 1972, 60,000 people of Asian origin were given just 90 days to leave their homes and their businesses in Uganda, after a decree issued by the then President of Uganda, Idi Amin. As has been said, remarkably, the UK Government expressed extreme distress with this course and, as a consequence of the real concern, Edward Heath’s Administration determined to resolve this by taking the steps upon which Your Lordships have commented today.

My noble friends Lord Popat and Lord Hunt both reflected on the inspiring, brilliant and honourable speeches and decisions by Prime Minister Heath and Home Secretary Carr. I was delighted to hear, in his elegant speech, about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s actions as a young Conservative in 1972. That is an inspiration to all Conservatives.

Preparations began in the UK to receive Ugandan Asians who had British passports. By 18 September 1972, the first 193 British Asians from Uganda had arrived at Stansted Airport. Just two months later, by 17 November, more than 27,000 Ugandan Asians had arrived and, in the first year between 1972 and 1973, a total of 38,500 Ugandan Asians were welcomed by Britain.

The United Kingdom acted swiftly and administered 16 temporary resettlement centres, in which approximately 22,000 people were accommodated for varying periods until they were supported to find permanent accommodation. The centres paid particular attention to the teaching of English and the provision of guidance about the British way of life. Just three months after the refugees had begun arriving, 1,000 employers had offered jobs to the newcomers.

As we mark 50 years since the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, we reflect on their enormous contribution to this country, whether in politics, business or other aspects of society. We have heard many examples today, from the Golden Mile of Leicester to Clapham, but I am also struck by the challenges faced by those who arrived here, who were subject to disgraceful racist abuse and attacks. I admire the bravery and resilience they have shown.

Ten years ago, my noble friend Baroness Warsi spoke about the Government’s approach to integration following the successful arrival of British Ugandan Asians. In the 10 years since, a number of significant events have led to people seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, including from the conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Indeed, I know that the cottage in Lambeth Palace, spoken of by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, has been used in more recent years to house Syrian refugees.

The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right to refer to that history as a success. Similar to our approach 50 years ago, we are committed to ensuring that anyone arriving through humanitarian routes can take positive steps towards integration as they rebuild their lives in the UK and, in so doing—we hope—emulate the experience of my noble friend Lord Popat and other Ugandan Asians.

Fifty years ago, when Ugandan Asians arrived in the UK, they were given support and advice on housing and employment, as well as access to healthcare, social security and education systems. In the present day, those resettled in the UK via safe and legal routes have access to mainstream benefits and services to enable their integration. We are working across government to ensure that these services meet the needs of refugees. Those arriving under one of the UK’s resettlement schemes have immediate access to the labour market and to benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to reflect on the parallels in relation to providing accommodation. We continue to seek assistance from local authorities across the UK to provide housing for those we resettle here.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to the labour market and asked about the shortage occupation list. We continue to work closely with the Migration Advisory Council on the occupations on that list.

Those arriving for our schemes for Hong Kongers and Ukrainians—for whom the Government opened schemes as expediently as those the late Lord Carr and his colleagues did in 1972, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred—have also had access across the labour market. I acknowledge the points of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the delays in providing visas, but I am proud that over 140,000 Ukrainians have arrived here since we opened the schemes just seven months ago, many being taken into the family homes of generous UK residents, just as the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, did 50 years ago.

We recognise that language is key to helping refugees integrate into life in the UK, as well as to breaking down barriers to work and career progression. In 1972, steps were taken to ensure that communications were written in Gujarati and in English. Today, we provide assistance to ensure that mainstream English language provision meets the needs of refugees. Our integration packages have a strong focus on supporting refugees to move more quickly to self-sufficiency.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harrington, who served the Government with great energy in his time as Minister for Refugees. He understands that collaboration with civil society, businesses and local authorities will continue to be the key to achieving our goals on refugee integration. We will ensure our approach is informed by the experiences of refugees.

In closing, I thank my noble friend Lord Popat, once more for securing this most moving and inspiring debate. It is right that we reflect on what happened 50 years ago and, as we do so, it is also right that we celebrate the huge contribution that the British Ugandan Asian community has made, and continues to make, to our society.

Republic of Ireland: British Passports

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to be here to make the final contribution to this short debate today, and I thank you all for your kind words of welcome. As the newly appointed—and, I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has noted, remaining—Lords Minister of State in the Home Office, it falls to me to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to this interesting debate. As your Lordships have all noted, this also happens to be my maiden speech.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I am aware that this is an issue of personal relevance for the noble Lord and for many, and one about which, clearly, he and many others feel strongly.

If I may, I will now turn to the customary part of a maiden speech. I must thank noble Lords for the great welcome they have given me in this place, particularly my supporters, my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Sharpe of Epsom—the latter being my fellow Home Office Minister. I also thank Black Rod, the clerks, and especially the doorkeepers. Needless to say, I am very grateful to my wife Amelia, and my children Matilda and Archie, who have been very supportive of my sudden change of career, notwithstanding that this means that I am not on hand as often at Blidworth, in the County of Nottinghamshire, to help with their homework.

As a lifelong member of the voluntary party, I was until 7 October proud to serve as the Conservative Party’s East Midlands regional chairman and as deputy leader of the Conservative group on Gedling Borough Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has observed. I would like to thank all the hard-working Conservative volunteers for their help through the years and for their support.

It is with some trepidation that I come before your Lordships’ House. My professional background is as a barrister specialising in public law and human rights, and I have had the honour to have been led by some truly learned and impressive legal Members of your Lordships’ House: notably, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who led me in the very lengthy Kenyan emergency group litigation, which was one of the longest running civil trials in England; the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who led me in a number of cases, notably one before the Supreme Court which concerned the assessment of damages for the violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who led me in an important case concerning the imposition of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” notices and more recently in the litigation in relation to the memoranda between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Rwanda, in which case the judgment is still awaited.

Having worked with these three noble Lords, I am sure your Lordships can now appreciate the trepidation to which I referred earlier. I shall be responsible in particular for the conduct of Home Office business before your Lordships’ House concerning migration and borders. This is a matter of special interest to me, not least since litigation concerning these issues has formed a significant part of my legal practice for the last 15 years, but also because it is one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of policy-making.

One pertinent family matter which I should perhaps mention in connection with this debate, is that, as with the noble Lord, Lord Hay, my mother is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, having been born in County Cork.

That brings me neatly to the question before the House today. In summary, the answer comes in three parts. First, given the long history of these two islands and the close relationship between the Government of Ireland and His Majesty’s Government, Irish citizens have a special status in all of the United Kingdom. An Irish citizen residing in the United Kingdom is treated in the same way as a British national, even including, as the noble Lord demonstrates, in relation to entitlement to membership of this House.

Secondly, it is of course open to those of more than five years’ residence within the United Kingdom, such as the noble Lord, to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen should they wish. Thirdly, the present entitlements to nationality are compliant with the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which provides that British nationality may be available for certain people born in Northern Ireland and not more broadly. By way of amplification, British citizens are defined by the British Nationality Act 1981. Only they are entitled to hold a British citizen passport as a matter of statute. This has been the case since the change of law in 1949, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay, referred to. The Government have no plans to reverse this position.

Article 1(vi) of the Belfast agreement states that it is the birthright of all people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British—or both, as they may so choose—and separately confirms that both Governments recognise that the people of Northern Ireland are able to hold British and Irish nationality. That agreement is very clear in its definition of “the people of Northern Ireland”. It defines them as

“all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”

People born in Ireland and living in Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK are consequently not deemed to be “people of Northern Ireland” for the purposes of that agreement, and they do not benefit from the agreement’s important birthright provisions on identity and citizenship. Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, it is important to note that the birthrights on how a person of Northern Ireland chooses to self-identify and their citizenship are quite rightly separate and distinct.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised a point on the interpretation of the Belfast agreement. As noble Lords are well aware, the Belfast agreement was carefully negotiated and accepted in referenda in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There are no plans to reopen it to change the definition of a “person of Northern Ireland”; nor indeed would the UK Government be able to amend an international treaty. Not meeting the definition of a “person of Northern Ireland” under the agreement does not mean, however, that you cannot get British citizenship.

As noble Lords across the House have noted, there is already a residence-based route which Irish citizens born after 1 January 1949 can utilise to become British citizens should they choose to do so: they can, of course, apply to naturalise. When naturalising, an applicant need show only five years’ lawful residence. This is of course a fraction of the period that the noble Lord, Lord Hay, has been resident in Northern Ireland. If an individual opts not to become a British citizen when they first become eligible to do so, and so resides in the UK for far longer than the minimum time period needed, they will still need to meet the same statutory requirements as any other applicant. This is fair and applies to applicants of any nationality. The noble Lord, Lord Hay, noted that the process was, in his view, discriminatory. I do not accept that, because it is important when considering naturalisation that everyone is treated the same. Many people across the union of the United Kingdom have lived here for a long time and paid taxes, and there is no particular reason why they should be treated differently from those the noble Lord suggests should be.

Turning to the question of fees, fees for naturalisation have remained static in recent years. This followed a period of increases imposed as part of the Home Office’s move towards a user-pays model. Irish nationals are considered as settled in the UK from their date of arrival, which gives them an advantage over applicants of other nationalities, who need to hold indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules before they can apply to naturalise. Irish nationals do not, therefore, have to pay ILR fees, which amount to £2,404 on some routes to indefinite leave to remain. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the breakdown of fees in respect of the cost of actually processing the application, I do not have that information to hand, and I will ensure that he is written to.

Turning to the knowledge of language and life in the UK test, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Rogan, individuals applying to naturalise across the piece are required to meet the Life in the UK test. A special provision, unsurprisingly, means that Irish nationals are exempt from the requirement to prove English language competency.

The Government’s view is that it is fair that all those who choose to take the step of becoming British citizens should meet the same core criteria, so citizenship can be awarded consistently. Citizenship carries important personal and legal consequences, and while I note the strength of feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, on this issue, it cannot be assumed that just because someone is a long-term resident in Northern Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, they wish to become a British citizen. We do not consider that automatically imposing British citizenship on Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland, or indeed anywhere, without their opting to apply for it would be appropriate. We would not want to do anything that might jeopardise the unique relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Our existing naturalisation processes provide an adequate route for Irish citizens with a close and continuing connection to the UK to become British, should they wish to do so. That route can be accessed by Irish citizens with far less residence than that suggested by the noble Lord. There is no provision in British nationality law for the automatic acquisition of citizenship on the basis of long-term UK residence for anyone, and we do not consider it appropriate to single out Irish nationals born in Ireland who live in Northern Ireland for different treatment from those from other countries with which the UK has strong links, such as the Commonwealth or EEA countries.

It would be impracticable to operate a system where an applicant must demonstrate residence in the UK for five decades. It would raise logistical issues regarding acceptable documents, permitted absence periods and challenges in establishing evidential thresholds for historical residence. They are changes which would, in turn, inflate the costs of citizenship processes for all and potentially reduce the likelihood of a successful application.

While I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, and why the noble Lord, Lord Hay, has raised these questions, matters of identity and citizenship are complex and present difficult questions for our society. However, for the reasons I have given, it would not be right automatically to confer British passports on Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland in the manner the noble Lord has suggested.

I am aware that a number of direct questions were asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I will reply to those by correspondence given the lack of time available.

House adjourned at 6.53 pm.