HM Passport Office: Backlogs

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord makes a good point. I will inquire as to whether we have recruited permanent staff or agency staff. If they are permanent full-time staff, they can of course be flexible to meet the needs of other parts of the Civil Service.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, at the end of 2020, when the Passport Office realised that it was 2 million short of its normal applications, why did it not encourage people to apply early, anticipating the problems that we now see?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know the answer to the question of why we did not encourage that. Obviously, we project numbers each year, but those numbers clearly did not transpire last year and we are now facing 9.5 million applications this year.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate, covering many varied and important issues across a range of portfolios. There have been a number of memorable speeches, to which I have listened intently and of which I have taken note—but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will be relieved to hear that I will not single out any particular revolutionary from the rest of the pack.

From my perspective, there appears to be a consistent and worrying theme that runs through the Her Majesty the Queen’s gracious Speech, undermining the preservation of long-standing institutions; a central tenet of conservative philosophy has been sacrificed for short-term political expediency: the exercise and retention of political power by the Executive. The Government appear to be clamping down on dissent and challenge, whether it is through the privatisation of Channel 4, the Bill of Rights or the Public Order Bill, which copies and pastes the parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act that relate to the policing of protests and which this House, with good reason, rejected in the previous Session. Let me say to those who feel that the Government have been defeated too many times that, the more controversial and unreasonable the legislation, the higher the number of government defeats will be.

It is interesting to note that, in the Government’s background briefing on the Queen’s Speech, the section on cutting crime is subtitled “Making the Streets Safer”. By this, the Government, like the Prime Minister, mean that crime is down 13% for the year ending December 2021 compared with December 2019—but that is only if you exclude fraud and computer misuse. Just because criminals change their modus operandi, it does not mean the Government can simply exclude these types of crime from the statistics. Including these offences, crime actually went up, but where in the Queen’s Speech—indeed, where in the history of this Government —are the effective legislative measures that are needed to prevent and detect this increasingly large proportion of crime committed in the UK, which predominantly affects the old and the vulnerable who can least afford the sometimes considerable losses involved?

Yesterday, the Home Secretary claimed in the other place that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. There was some dispute in the other place about the crime statistics, so let me use the statistics that the Government placed in the background briefing to the Queen’s Speech. Homicides are up 14%; violence against the person offences are up 13%; sexual offences were up 22% last year compared with the year before. The offences that have the biggest impact on individuals are all increasing, according to the Government’s own figures. Stop and search is also up 22%, which raises the question of how effective it is compared with the damage that it causes. Last year, 80% of burglary investigations were closed without a suspect being identified. More than 90% of thefts from vehicles and bicycle thefts went unsolved. Crime is rising because, eight times out of 10, the thief gets away with it.

Making sure that victims are told quickly that their case is going nowhere is not the right response. We are not interested in empty rhetoric; we are interested in evidence-led measures that are proven to work, such as restoring a uniformed presence on our streets and restoring the support staff who help to solve crime.

Where in the Queen’s Speech are measures to tackle old people being conned into transferring their life savings into criminals’ accounts; to tackle violence, particularly male violence against women; and to address the misogyny that is everywhere, from the Houses of Parliament and the police service to the streets—misogyny that makes it unsafe for women to go jogging on their own and makes female Conservative MPs feel uncomfortable when sitting on the green Benches?

Instead, we get the return of the draconian clampdown on protests, which the Minister described as measures to prevent protestors using “guerrilla tactics”, meaning protestors attaching themselves to each other, to objects or to buildings, as the suffragettes did to secure votes for women—exactly the same measures that this House has already rejected.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Lord Privy Seal said on Wednesday:

“I have no doubt that this ambitious programme will, as ever, benefit from your Lordships’ wisdom and expertise, and that your Lordships will help to ensure that the legislation can be as effective as possible.” —[Official Report, 10/5/22; col. 17.]


If only that were the case. The reality, not only on crucial aspects of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill but on other legislation last Session, was more accurately described by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who, in the same debate, remembered a conversation with a former Minister who recalled being able to take issues back to his department, where he would be listened to if he made a case for change, though not since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister. Modesty forbids me naming names, but this House has expertise in policing protests that was not listened to. Not even serving police officers have been listened to. The majority of those consulted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services say that it was not a lack of legislation that was hindering their ability to police protests effectively but a lack of police officers.

The Government’s attempts to bring police officer numbers closer to what they were a decade ago are running into trouble, with the temporary leader of the UK’s largest police force saying that they are struggling to meet recruitment targets. Even if they succeed, thousands of police community support officers, a crucial visible uniformed presence on the streets, and thousands of support staff, who enable police officers to be released from back-office roles, will not be replaced. Part of the Government’s public order proposals is to introduce serious disruption prevention orders, effectively banning people from being able to exercise their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of speech and the right to assembly.

I found it breath-taking that, in the space of a minute, the Minister talked about deporting refugees to Rwanda and government compassion for those fleeing war in Ukraine. Having successfully undermined the rights of genuine refugees fleeing war and oppression, through the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Government now seek to further undermine the rights of UK citizens to protest, and other rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act, seeking to replace the latter with a Bill of Rights.

If people have misunderstood what the Bill of Rights is about, that is the fault of government hype. The ability of individuals to challenge infringement of their rights will be made more difficult by, for example, the proposed requirement that the claimant prove significant disadvantage before a case can be heard in court. I know from personal experience that already most requests for judicial review are turned down on the papers, and many are refused at hearings in person, with very few getting through to a full hearing. The reasons for needing a Bill of Rights are spurious.

The Online Safety Bill is welcome but falls short of the Government’s aim to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. The issue of legal but harmful content has yet to be effectively addressed and the protections for children from pornography, self-harm and grooming all fall short of the standard the Government have set for themselves. To think that short cuts in data protection will reap a Brexit dividend ignores the potential impact on the data adequacy certification that the EU requires to enable the exchange of personal information, essential to both the security of the UK and its economic well-being in relation to its dealings with the European Union.

There is also the privatisation of Channel 4, a jewel in the crown of this country’s broadcasters, which supports independent producers throughout the UK and has headquarters in Leeds. It is the very model of levelling up, is in the rudest of rude financial health and does not cost the taxpayer a penny. Not only does Channel 4 commission a diverse range of award-winning content but it is fiercely independent, making it altogether different from any other broadcaster. Its privatisation will make it altogether the same as any other commercial broadcaster.

I have two sentences on banning conversion therapy. No one should be pressured into being someone they are not. Everyone should be helped to be who they really are.

Many on the Benches opposite talk about the conventions of this House. By convention, Governments listen to the wisdom and expertise in this House and respond positively. By convention, Governments do not change primary legislation by statutory instrument and, by convention, this House does not pray against them. It is not us on these Benches who are undermining these conventions; it is this Conservative Government.

This Government are not listening. They are not listening to the police, to victims of violent crime, particularly women, or to the vulnerable, whether victims of scams, harmful online content or the cost of living crisis. They are not listening to the millions who watch and enjoy Channel 4 or those who cherish the BBC. This Government are not listening to the wisdom and expertise in this House. It is a very dangerous path for the Government to go down. They need to stop and think very carefully before they go any further.

Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. His first question was why young children need to have their biometrics done, and he said that it could mean they have to travel a long way to do it. The reason why they have to have their biometrics done, and the reason why all this procedure takes place, is simply to make sure that they are indeed the children of the parent they are with. I have visited a VAC, having taken notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said—as I always do and as indeed I did when he was in the other place—because it is very serious. It is about as light-touch as is imaginable. For example, I saw a young child whose only form of identification to show that she was indeed the child of that mother was a letter from the doctor who delivered the child in Ukraine. That was acceptable, as are birth certificates. There is not a very high level of proof, but we just have to make sure because of our information about traffickers of young children. I know that the noble Lord would sympathise with that.

The noble Lord’s second question was, why do we not tell people when they have got the visa? There have been delays, and I am now assured that that is not the case. I am sure that the noble Lord will have me here at this very Dispatch Box if he has reports to the contrary, but he knows he could tell me that personally beforehand.

Finally, the noble Lord asked why there are so few arrivals compared to the total amount of visas. This has been perplexing me. The main reason for my recent visit to Poland was to try to find out why it has happened. There are a number of reasons, and I have commissioned some professional research on it given the number of people who have got visas compared to the number coming, so I can give the noble Lord only my opinion based on what I saw. I think that there are two reasons. One of them is that it has taken too long for people to get the visas from the time of their application—I accept that and have done my best to make sure that it is not the case, and we are now at “friction”, which means that the target of 48 hours should in the vast majority of cases be met.

The second reason—again, this is not research or a systematic poll or anything like that; it is from speaking to people involved—is that many of the refugees take our visas out in case the worst happens beyond now, but, for the moment, a lot of them believe that they can go back and live in their country, and they wish to stay as close as possible. I have had quite a few moving experiences in Syria and other places, but seeing young women speaking on mobile phones to their husbands and fathers who are fighting in live time—which I know can obviously be done with technology—I can imagine why they want to stay as near as possible. I am working on this, and I intend to make sure that the system is simplified and that we have people helping people through the procedure. If necessary, we will move on to helping them with flights and with everything in the process.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, a brief answer from the Minister would be appreciated. Initially, the Home Office said that Ukrainian refugees had to have a visa because of concerns that Russian agents would pretend to be refugees. The Home Office then changed its mind and said that Ukrainian refugees had to have a visa because of concerns, as the Minister has said, about trafficking. Yet, all other European nations have accepted Ukrainian refugees visa free because the Ukrainians put systems in place to protect vulnerable people, and so did the countries receiving them. A Home Office whistleblower told the Guardian on Saturday that the system was “designed to fail”. Is that not nearer the truth?

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his comments and will try to be as brief as he wants me to be. On the reasons for the visas, I do not recognise the one about the infiltration of secret agents. I do, however, recognise the point about safeguarding, trafficking and so on. I hope that the noble Lord knows that I have done my best to ensure that this procedure is carried out as quickly as possible, but I make no excuses for our trying to identify that people who come here are who they say they are before they arrive. This is very important.

I do not accept what the whistleblower has said in the Guardian. I would like them to come and speak to me, and I would be very happy to go through it with them—that is how I run my whole ministry. I do not recognise that point.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

A revising Chamber surely has the right to have its revisions properly considered. That is why I would have wished us to give the other place a last chance to reconsider Clause 11 and the case for putting respect for international obligations plainly on the face of the Bill. But I have been advised by those whose judgment I respect that there is a limit to the number of issues that can be kept in play at this stage of the game; and I have been advised that, after three successful votes, I have reached that limit. Three strikes, and I am out, it seems. So, I will not be putting Motion B1 to the vote. I am very grateful to all those who have supported it three times. The record will show that this House believes in pacta sunt servanda. I am grateful to the Minister for the courtesy she showed in dealing with obstreperous points from me. I urge all those who would have voted for Motion B1 to vote, as I will, for Motion A1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, if she puts it to the vote, as I very much hope she will.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I have the greatest respect for, I am not a lawyer, so it is with some trepidation that I enter the arena. But that is my role. As far as my common sense tells me, international agreements such as the 1951 refugee convention mean nothing if each and every signatory to the convention can reinterpret the agreement to suit its own political ends. The whole point of the refugee convention, like the European Convention on Human Rights, is to prevent rogue states passing domestic legislation that overrules the rights of refugees or the basic human rights of their own citizens in the wake of what was then the recent history of the Second World War.

On the back of their attempts to reinterpret the 1951 refugee convention, this Government appear to be about to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, judging by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. In the context of those convicted of terrorism offences challenging their segregation in prison, Dominic Raab said, at two hours and 21 minutes into the programme,

“it shows you why our Bill of Rights is so important to replace the Human Rights Act.”

So much for the Minister relying on the Human Rights Act in her arguments. I am reminded of “First they came” by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller. If we do not speak out about this Government eroding the rights of refugees, as they seek to do in this Bill, the next step will be to erode the rights of each and every one of us.

Motion A1 is a final attempt to at least make the Government honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said yesterday, if the Government were to say, “We know this Bill does not comply with the refugee convention, but we are going to enact it anyway”, they would at least be being honest. Motion A1, as I understand it, simply allows the courts to make a declaration that any parts of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are incompatible with the refugee convention and require the Government to take note of the finding—the Government having been given the opportunity to be joined as a party to the proceedings. If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, divides the House, we will support her. I understand why she may not want to divide the House, but if this were our amendment, we would. This time, it is refugees’ rights; next time, it could be our rights that are in danger if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way.

We also strongly support Motion B1 for similar reasons. It should be for the Secretary of State to prove why a genuine refugee is to be categorised as a class 1 or class 2 refugee. In any event, any Immigration Rules that are applied to whichever group a genuine refugee is categorised by the Secretary of State as falling into must not permit any practice that would be contrary to the Government’s international obligations. If this were our amendment, we would be dividing the House, but we respect the noble Lord’s decision.

On Motion C, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, having won the argument yesterday by one vote, has chosen not to pursue the right to work for refugees, despite the Government being unable to produce a shred of evidence to counter the comprehensive and compelling evidence provided yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly demonstrated that the right to work is not a so-called pull factor. The arguments made by the Minister about costs, devoid of any facts based on real-world experience unlike those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, were speculative and, never having been presented before during the passage of the Bill from my recollection, smacked of last-gasp desperation.

Liberal Democrats have long campaigned and will continue to campaign for the right of asylum seekers to pay their own way, to secure the dignity that comes from being able to support themselves and to integrate more effectively in society by being able to work. In case this is my last opportunity to speak on this Bill, may I say how appalled and disgusted I am by it? There is only one political party to blame for this shameful legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let me start by saying that I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. Along with many noble Lords and Baronesses in this House, I have argued time and again against a Bill that most of us think is wrong and unethical. We have argued against the Government time after time on these issues, and I am going to spend a couple of minutes saying why I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I wanted to put that on record to start with because I do not want the position that we have taken—thinking that we have come to the end of the parliamentary political process with this—to be misunderstood to mean that we do not agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Pannick and Lord Paddick, or with any other Member who supports these amendments, because I do, and we do. But there comes a point—even I accept this, after what I said yesterday—where you have to recognise that this would be the fourth time that we would have sent this back.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was kind enough to say what he did about me in the Commons, but I think that the Commons currently guillotines legislation far too quickly, which means that things are not properly considered. Frankly, that causes resentment—as happened the other day when we sent 12 amendments back and they were discussed in an hour—and people to ask why we should not send things back more often.

That is the root of the problem. But as someone who has stood for election on many of these issue and, like others, lost, fighting for this out in the community, I accept that the battle or argument now has to go beyond Parliament and out into the country. This is what elections are about. The Government get their way in the end because they won the 2019 general election and can pursue their agenda in Parliament. I can be angry, and this House can send a Bill back 10 or 12 times, but if the Conservative Government have a majority in the Commons, they will simply reject it. Of course we have a right to ask the Commons to think again, and in some cases it has done. I accept that there is a debate around how many times we should send Bills back, and whether we should send this one back once more; there is a legitimate question as to whether three times is enough or whether it should be four. But the position we have come to is that we think we are now at the end of the line. That is clearly not a view that everyone agrees with, but let it not be said that the disagreement is about the content of the Bill or the worth of the amendments; it is not. It is just about the best way to take this forward. That is the point I wanted to make.

It is worth reiterating that, as much as any other, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes to the heart of the Bill. Essentially, it was trying to say that the differential treatment of refugees would mean that vast numbers of people who come and claim asylum in this country would be criminalised. I cannot believe that that is acceptable, and that is what the amendment is getting at. We had the almost farcical situation where we were trying to imagine how someone could actually get here legitimately to claim asylum. We are an island, so what country can you come through unless you fly? But you cannot fly, because of the database checks that are carried out when you get on a plane, and so by definition you must come through a safe country to get here. According to the Bill we have before us, anybody doing that is coming illegally and should be stopped—unless they have come on one of the safe routes, but these are unavailable to large numbers of people.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. He and other noble Lords pointed out that this would have criminalised Ukrainians fleeing at the beginning of the conflict, and Afghans who had helped the British Army. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is crucial, but these arguments have to be won not only in this Chamber but out in the country. But instead, to be frank, the Government say that we have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country and they are the only ones who will fix it—ignoring the fact that they have been in power for 12 years and have not managed to sort it out in that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will appreciate that this is not a debate as to whether the amendment is right but about where we go to now. That is a position that noble Lords will have to consider for themselves, but we have considered it very carefully and come to the view that we have.

I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, but on this she is absolutely right and I totally agree with the points she has made. Other noble Lords have joined in: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made his usual excellent contribution, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, who pointed out the importance of obeying international law and respecting our international obligations.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No. As an aside, I googled double-gazing companies, just in case the Minister wanted a hand with that. However, I thought that was not taking this, or dealing with this, with the seriousness it needs. I get criticised for using humour but the reason I do so is not to trivialise an important point of principle; all I am doing is saying that I am quoting from a government document on the website, available and updated for the benefit of this deliberation. The Government have got their way on a whole range of different issues; it is the right of the Commons, as the Minister pointed out, to have its way as the elected House. We have an absolute right, though, as the House of Lords, to push right until the last minute on things that are nonsensical. The “too noisy” provision is a nonsense. Protests are about noise.

The police have perfectly adequate powers; they arrest people for making noise, using breaches of the peace and so on. The government document says that the trouble with a breach of the peace is that it does not have very much power, except that the police can arrest you. I would have thought that being able to arrest was adequate. I do not know about other noble Lords but I have never been arrested. I suggest to this House that for the vast majority of people, believing that they were going to be arrested would be a pretty serious threat to them. For the vast majority of people, that would stop them. The Government’s document says that it is not an adequate power. My view is that the power of arrest is a pretty important power that the police can use.

The right to protest is a fundamental right of democracy—a fundamental right that all of us, including me, have used—and one that involves making noise. The Government have got their way in respect of place and conditions, not only on processions but on assembly. We pushed back and the Government have now made a further concession to have a review after two years as to whether this “too noisy” provision has worked. It is time for us to push back again and say that the provision is a nonsense; it is ridiculous. It does not work, it will not work and it is not needed. I hope that when it comes to a Division, noble Lords will consider this a step too far in allowing the police to act to control protests, processions and marches. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, for all the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we support Motions A1 and B2 on the noise trigger. Specifically, asking the police to anticipate what noise levels a protest that has yet to take place might result in is likely to bring the police into unnecessary and avoidable conflict with the public, further undermining the trust and confidence that the police rely on to be effective. The more popular the protest, the more likely it is to be noisy and the more likely it is to be banned.

I cannot play the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at his own game, but he did ask me a specific question about the rank of officer who should be judging whether a protest is too noisy. Perhaps an additional condition should be for that officer to have a hearing test, because we cannot possibly have hearing-impaired senior officers making such important judgments.

On Motions B and B1, we insist on the amendment passed by this House the last time this issue was considered. That amendment allows the police to impose conditions on the start and end time of an assembly, meeting or political rally, in addition to the existing powers they have to set or move where the assembly takes place and to limit the numbers attending and its duration, but not to ban an assembly, meeting or political rally completely. In particular, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others.

Of course, it may be necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to place restrictions on this right, and existing legislation and Motion B1 allow that, but when it comes to taking away the right to freedom of peaceful assembly completely, by allowing the police to ban people meeting together, we agree with the then Conservative Home Secretary in the other place when the original legislation was passed that that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. Allowing the police to prevent people peacefully meeting together—to ban political rallies, for example—surely puts us on the slippery slope of the erosion of fundamental human rights and the imposition of a police state. I ask noble Lords to support Motion B1.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for Motions A1 and B1. Another thought the police might have to consider is the historical place: how their judgment might be judged, both at that moment and later in history.

I have on my office wall a cartoon from Punch about the suffragettes. It has a whole series of episodes from a Minister’s day. It starts with the Minister in his bath. The suffragettes shout “Votes for women” through his window and he jumps up in horror. He then goes on the golf course. The suffragettes leap out of a bunker and shout “Votes for women”. He then breathes a sigh of relief when he gets to the House. The suffragettes appear through his window, shouting “Votes for women”.

I do not know whether the Minister knows “The March of the Women”, one of the suffragettes’ anthems. It starts:

“Shout, shout, up with your song! Cry with the wind for the dawn is breaking … Loud and louder it swells, Thunder of freedom”.


Noisy protest has been, and is, a central part of our democracy. It has been a central part of creating our democracy. Protest—having your voice heard—is not and must not be a crime.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Paddick]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 80, do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E, 80F and 80H to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with that Amendment, do insist on its Amendment 80J instead of the words left out of the Bill by that Amendment and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 80K to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 80.”

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I should inform the House that if Motion B1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion B2 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Given the advisory role of this House and the need to focus attention on further egregious clauses, I will not seek the opinion of the House on this Motion.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have Motion K1 in this group but I will speak to each of the other Motions. I will say very little on the individual Motions, but I remind the House of what I said at Second Reading. If British people, as we are constantly told, are concerned about immigration, this Bill, which targets asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery, is not focused on their primary concern.

In an article in the Telegraph yesterday, Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former chief of staff, wrote about his concerns about mass immigration. Nowhere in that article does he mention asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery or the Nationality and Borders Bill. He points to the real causes of mass immigration: 240,000 work visas, up 25% compared with 2019, which was a big year for immigration; 280,000 family visas, up 49%; and 430,000 student visas, up 52%. These numbers dwarf the numbers claiming asylum.

Work permits have become unlimited; the definition of a skilled worker has been watered down; the shortage occupation list has been extended; employers no longer have to prove that they could not recruit from the resident population; and foreign students are allowed to stay on after their studies no matter what their qualification. An Australian-style points-based system, designed to increase immigration into Australia, is having the same effect here, despite the end of free movement. Yet this Government, and this Bill, address none of these issues but instead focus on the small minority fleeing war, persecution and modern slavery, who desperately need sanctuary.

On Motions A and A1, we believe that the safeguards the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has secured in relation to deprivation of British citizenship without notice will ensure that further abuse of the system is prevented. While we have sympathy with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we are pleased that she is not going to divide the House on this occasion.

On Motions K and K1, I understand the Government’s determination to prosecute people smugglers but the unintended consequences of removing the “for gain” element of the offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker into the United Kingdom are to subject individuals, most importantly those seeking to rescue migrants drowning in the channel, to prosecution.

The first amendment approved by this House to reinstate “for gain” was a Labour amendment. The second, a Liberal Democrat amendment, provided that those with a reasonable excuse for facilitating entry would not commit an offence. Both were rejected by the other place. This third attempt would mean that individuals engaged in genuine humanitarian activity, including the preservation of life, would not commit an offence.

This is about removing doubt from the minds of those who come across drowning migrants in the channel that they may be prosecuted if they effect an immediate rescue. The Bill, as drafted, says that they commit a criminal offence. The only current defence is that, once charged, they may present a defence in court—once they have been arrested and prosecuted. Whatever the Government might say, that could cause people to hesitate when decisive, life-saving action is needed. We believe that lives depend on Motion K1 being agreed by this House, and I urge noble Lords around the House to support it.

We support Motion L1, and do not believe that modern slavery should be part of this Bill at all. These victims are extremely vulnerable and should be supported, apart from in very exceptional circumstances. The current “public order” concern is far too broad. We believe that Motion L1 provides a solution to that issue, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will explain.

On Motion M, it is with great regret that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over many years, to protect and properly support victims of modern slavery, have come to a point where his own party, the Conservative Party, refuse to support him in his attempts to make appropriate provision for such victims.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by saying a couple of words about a couple of the Motions and will then concentrate my remarks on Motion L1, in my name, on modern slavery.

On Motion A1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and the work she and many others in this House have done on this particular issue. As she knows, we originally wanted the whole clause to be removed, but we recognise that the Government have changed the clause significantly by accepting the safeguards tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Minister is to be congratulated on moving as far as she did on that issue. On that basis, and that of other safeguards, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has mentioned, there is nothing further we can do with respect to this clause. As I said, we all note the work which the Minister has done. Certainly, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would not have been as well accepted as it was by the Government without the work she has done.

On Motion K1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we agree entirely with the problems which the removal of the words “for gain” creates. He knows that I have supported him all the way through the Bill. But we are left with difficult decisions and, although the Government have removed rescue efforts co-ordinated by the coastguard from the scope of the offence, a captain who takes a split-second decision to rescue lives at sea will officially commit an offence. This is addressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, only by the fact that they will have an exceptionally strong defence for doing so. I note that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that she does not believe that someone would be prosecuted in those circumstances, and it would helpful if she reiterated that again from the Dispatch Box as a further safeguard and reassurance to people who may be put in that position. We would have liked to see this remaining problem fixed but, as I said, as the Government have already significantly amended this clause, we are doubtful that there is anything more to be achieved in this respect and there are other issues we wish to focus on—one of which I will turn to now.

I first thank the Minister, who tried to address many of the issues which have been raised around Clause 62. I remind noble Lords that, as my amendment points to, this clause deals with disqualifying potential victims of modern slavery from protection. As the Minister confirmed, this includes children. We are genuinely trying to be helpful on this issue. As the Minister outlined, the Government clearly recognise the real problem here. The clause, as originally drafted, was too broad, and it remains too broad. It will actually capture victims who have a criminal record only as a consequence of their slavery—because they have been exploited and forced into crime by their traffickers. This legislation, even as amended, and even with the reassurances from the Minister, will still capture victims of modern slavery and disqualify them from protection. This is the reality of the legislation before us: it will prevent victims entering the NRM; it will tighten traffickers’ hold on their victims; and it will stop us being able to find, stop and prosecute the vile people traffickers.

The Government have been generous with their time; they have met me and trafficking organisations on numerous occasions. But the problem remains in the way that this clause is drafted. The amendment that I have put before the House seeks to give the Government time to sort out the issue, which they recognise as a problem, of defining “public order”. As it is in the Bill at the moment, victims of trafficking who commit minor offences are potentially disqualified from protection. That cannot be what the Government, this House or anyone would wish, but it is the consequence of the Bill—it is the consequence of the legislation as it is drafted. Whatever the warm words and intentions of the Minister—who would not want that to happen and says that it will be all right on a case-by-case basis—you cannot legislate on the basis that it will be all right on the night. That is not the right way of doing it. The legislation creates the problem. We also tried to address concerns around terrorism, and that is why we added TPIMs to the amendment.

I want to refer to the Government’s latest statistics to conclude my remarks on modern slavery. According to the Government’s own document, published a couple of weeks ago, 43% of those who claimed asylum last year because of exploitation were children. This means that 43% will potentially be impacted—I am not saying that they will be—by this clause as it is currently drafted. That is the reality of what is before your Lordships this afternoon and why I am so insistent on my amendment, in Motion L1.

The Minister referred to the number of adults who are not officially referred—if you are an adult, you have to give consent—and where instead the first responders act on their duty to notify. In the past year, this number has increased by 47%—47% of adults are refusing to consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism. The Minister will say that it is up to them whether or not they consent, but let me say why I think they do not consent. I think that an increasing number of victims or potential victims of trafficking do not consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism because they are scared. They do not see authority in the way that we do. They do not see police officers in the way that we do. They do not see immigration officials in the way that we do. They do not see civil servants in the way that we do. They are frightened. They are victims. They may have been forced into criminality and, as such, they do not want to have it imposed on them that they must be referred to an official system. That there has been a 47% increase in victims or potential victims refusing to consent to being referred to the system should ring alarm bells with everyone.

My amendment says that, because of an increased emphasis on things such as public order, there is a failure to recognise the reality for victims of slavery and their lives. Many noble Lords here, including me, have met victim after victim and potential victim after potential victim—people who are terrified, mortified and scarred for ever by their experience. Yet the way this Bill is drafted, it will penalise them for that experience and any forced criminality. This is not the Government’s intention—I accept that—but it is the reality of the legislation before them. I ask your Lordships this: why, either in this place or the other place, would you pass a piece of legislation that flies directly in the face of the policy objectives that you have? It is nonsense. The Government do not want to exclude potential victims of modern slavery from referring themselves or being referred, but that will be the consequence of this legislation if it is unamended.

We will divide the House on this. We want the Commons once again to think whether they really want to pass legislation that will potentially lead to victims of modern slavery not coming forward or having the help and support they deserve. I do not believe they do. That is why we should support Motion L1 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, contrary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just said, I accept that the Attorney-General is a senior Law Officer. But she is also a member of the Government and, as far as I am concerned, in relation to Motions B and B1, it is vital that compliance of domestic legislation with the UK’s international obligations—in this case, the 1951 refugee convention—is decided by the courts. If a precedent is set that a UK Government can reinterpret its international obligations by passing domestic legislation, where does it end? This Bill would remove refugees’ fundamental human rights, as set out in an international convention to which the UK is a signatory, unless we support Motion B1.

Motion C1 applies the same principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the UK courts have held time after time that an asylum seeker’s temporary stop in another country on their way to the UK does not invalidate their claim for asylum in the UK, nor does a delay in presenting themselves to the authorities if they have good cause.

Motion C1 also, importantly, restates the provision in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that the Immigration Rules must not result in a breach of the refugee convention. It also states the importance of the best interests of the child and the right to family unity, and we support it.

On Motions D and D1, we have long campaigned for the right of asylum seekers to work, and we continue to do so. We do not believe that any so-called pull factor, as the Government claim the right to work to be, is as strong or as impactful as the push factors that force asylum seekers to seek sanctuary in another country—or is even a consideration compared to them. This is even more obviously the case if the right to work is the same or less generous than in other countries, as this amendment proposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, we wholeheartedly support it.

The issues in Motion E are arguably covered by Motion C1.

Motions F, F1 and F2 have been brought into stark relief by the Government’s announcement of the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Rwanda. An article in the Times yesterday, for which a considerable number of asylum seekers in northern France were spoken to, proves what the Home Office’s own civil servants have told the Home Secretary: that outsourcing, or offshoring, and the threat of permanent removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will not deter channel crossings. That is what asylum seekers in northern France are saying.

The outrage of this House at these proposals was amply demonstrated yesterday, albeit unfairly directed at the Minister personally, in response to the Private Notice Question on the Rwanda deal. The Minister claimed that removal to places such as Rwanda had been legally possible for years. Can the Minister clarify whether offshoring is legally possible only if the Home Secretary certifies that a claim is without merit and that, even then, the claim can continue to be pursued from overseas? Is it right that there is no provision for a successful claimant of refugee status to be permanently excluded from the UK under current legislation?

The Minister talked about the cost of the asylum system being approximately £1.5 billion a year. Surely that is due mainly to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Home Office, which has led to record levels of outstanding claims, despite the fact that the number of asylum claims is less than half of what it was a decade or so ago.

The Minister also said that noble Lords should read the memorandum of understanding. Some of us have. There is a section in it requiring Rwanda to provide appropriate support to those removed by the UK who are victims of modern slavery. Can the Minister confirm that the Government accept that victims of modern slavery will also be removed to Rwanda? Otherwise, why is that section contained in the MoU?

We will support anything that prevents this immoral and senseless government proposal being put into practice. If either the right reverend Prelate or the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, divide the House, we will support them.

On Motion G, as the Government have accepted in relation to Ukraine, family reunion is an important and effective means of providing sanctuary to asylum seekers, and we continue to support family reunion whenever and wherever we can.

On Motions H and H1, the Ukrainian refugee crisis has demonstrated how ill prepared the UK is and how uncaring the UK Government are in insisting on visas for dealing with the resettlement of refugees, compared with the generosity of the British people in offering to open up their homes. Setting a target and then gearing up to meet it is a sensible and pragmatic way of dealing with the issue, informed by local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Paddick]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 20D in lieu—

20D: Page 41, line 41, at end insert— “(3A) After section 25A(3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person whose action is taken for humanitarian reasons including the preservation of life.”””

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the order, which I entirely endorse. It recognises and reflects that there is a willingness, as we come out of the pandemic, to celebrate such an auspicious occasion. It has been a particularly tough time for the hospitality sector over the last two years or so.

I refer briefly to my chairmanship of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, where I work closely with the hospitality sector. Not having to pay the TEN fee, as referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, will be very welcome in saving not just the fee but the time that would have had to be spent.

I have one hesitation. I am sure my noble friend will be aware of the agent of change issues that have been flagged up. She will be aware that we are just concluding a follow-up report to our previous Select Committee inquiry on the Licensing Act 2003. I am not yet at liberty to say what our recommendations will be because we have not yet concluded that, but there is an issue where there may have been a recent application for an outlet in the hospitality sector to open its doors in an area that has previously been primarily residential. Is that something that both the Government and those acquiescing to these licences will be mindful of, given that it will be, as my noble friend said, a four-day bank holiday? That is my only reservation. Otherwise, I entirely endorse the order.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. If ever there was an occasion of exceptional national significance, surely it must be Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. Therefore, we are generally supportive.

However, my concern is over the fact that the Government listened to the consultation that was run and, according to what they have published:

“Out of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should only apply to on sales”,


not to off-sales. As a consequence, this instrument does not apply to off-sales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My concern is Section 11 of the Business and Planning Act 2020, which allowed on-licence premises to sell alcohol as an off-licence for a period of time, because of the Covid pandemic. That included sales in open containers and alcohol for delivery to residential or work premises. Effectively, on-licence premises could act as off-licences. The ability of on-licence premises to act as off-licences does not cease until 30 September. That is my understanding of the legislation.

As I said, of the 74 respondents, 58 agreed that the extension should apply only to on-sales, presumably because they were concerned about disorder in the streets if people were allowed to buy alcohol in off-licence premises and take it away, rather than consume alcohol in regulated on-licence premises. Therefore, there is a flaw in the instrument, in that the concern about increased alcohol-related crime and disorder as a result of the extension being applied to off-licence premises has not taken into account that all on-licence premises are, until 30 September this year, able to act as off-licence premises. What does the Minister have to say about that?

Other than that concern, I hope that people will celebrate in a manner fitting with the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we in the Labour Party also support this statutory instrument and wish the Queen a happy birthday. I hope that the country enjoys a weekend to celebrate this happy occasion.

This is a usual extension of licensing hours, if I can put it like that, for royal events and major sporting events. For example, we did this for the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, for that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

We have heard about the consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was kind enough to mention his concern before today’s debate, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the point he raised. It is a fair question.

Finally, my question to the Minister is this: does she propose raising a glass until 1 am, as a fitting tribute to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee?

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, this provision has been in place since 1999. I do not know if it has been challenged before, but it is certainly a long-standing provision that we think meets our international obligations.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill to enable offshoring, which this House continues to oppose. If this legislation is necessary, why have the Government signed a memorandum with Rwanda before Parliament has approved it? If it is not necessary, why did the Government put it in the Bill in the first place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.

Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Paddick]

That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021 (SI 2021/962) extends the planning permission for the Napier Barracks to continue to be used as asylum accommodation despite (1) a High Court judgment on 3 June 2021, which found standards and operational systems at the barracks to be unlawful, (2) concerns being raised over the unsanitary and crowded conditions, and (3) reports of intimidation and mistreatment of residents; and that, despite the current expiration date on planning permission being known for 12 months, the Order was laid when the House was not sitting.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I start by suggesting that there may be a form of discrimination going on in this House. It seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the Minister, always seems to get last business on the day before Recess. I know she is far too diligent and industrious to complain herself, so I thought I would put that on the record.

I move that this House regrets this order, which permits continued use of Napier barracks despite a High Court judgment which found standards and operating systems at the barracks to be unlawful, with concerns being raised about unsanitary and crowded conditions and reports of intimidation and mistreatment of residents.

The 13th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House drew the House’s special attention to this order. The fact that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the High Court had concluded that Napier barracks was unsuitable for long-term use, should have been disclosed to Parliament, yet there was nothing in the order nor in the Explanatory Memorandum about those things. It criticised the Explanatory Memorandum for lacking detail about proposed improvements to the living accommodation and amenities on site and said that better arrangements for physical and mental health care were a matter of urgency. The committee also criticised laying what was in effect an emergency provision, when the date of the current planning permission had been known for 12 months in advance, reporting

“we found this reason for laying a potentially controversial instrument when Parliament was not sitting unconvincing.”

This House recently discussed Napier barracks being used to house asylum seekers in our debates on the Nationality and Borders Bill. On 3 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who regrets she cannot be in her place today, told the Committee that the APPG on Immigration Detention had received evidence, all of which was “overwhelmingly negative”,

“from stakeholder organisations and from those with experience of living in Napier”—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1014.]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, whose contribution to that debate I am relying on heavily today.

Placing large numbers of asylum seekers into one location is not good for integration or good relations with local people, providing a focus for anti-immigrant protest, including harassment of asylum seekers. The larger the centres, the less the residents feel that their humanity is recognised and the more likely the centres are to attract hostile attention, working against social cohesion and integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I probably should not have brought this aspect up. As I am going on to say, these centres are not detention centres; people are not detained in them. Therefore, it may be something to do with the pandemic, but if I am wrong in my assessment of why people might be inside, I will clarify that. I am assuming that they may have been self-isolating, when the restrictions were quite severe on absolutely everybody in this country.

Going back to the continued use of Napier, following the outcome of NB and others’ litigation in June 2021, the Home Office progressed work to ensure that the department could continue to use the barracks and avoid any potential breach of planning control given under permitted development rights. These were due to expire in September of last year. Given the urgency to ensure that there was additional capacity in the system and the statutory obligation on the Home Office to provide support to destitute asylum seekers, the only viable option was to proceed with a special development order. I should add that the tenancy agreement with the MoD confirms that the site will be handed back in March 2025—in three years’ time—to support the full decommissioning of the site.

On the conditions of the site, I note comments by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about Napier. Maybe I just listened to what I want to hear, but the right reverend Prelate seemed to confirm that things had significantly improved; although they were not absolutely perfect, things had improved significantly at the site. As I have said, the site is used to provide temporary accommodation for around 300 otherwise destitute adult men for up to 90 days. The average length of stay is about 70 days. Service users staying at Napier are free to come and go as they please—they are not detained at Napier. The accommodation at Napier meets our statutory obligations. It is safe, warm, dry and it provides a choice of good hot meals, as well as proper laundry and cleaning facilities.

Turning to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a significant amount of work has been carried out to make improvements to the conditions at Napier barracks—hence, possibly, the right reverend Prelate’s comments about it. There is a prescribing nurse; dental care is provided on site, and there is access to local GP services. There is also a prayer room and a multifaith room. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham confirmed, sports and recreational activities have been re-introduced. Additional furniture, table-tennis tables and a library have been installed, and CCTV and night-time courtesy patrols have also been put in place. The Home Office has significantly improved the management and oversight at the site, with an emphasis on identifying issues early and ensuring that the accommodation is safe and well maintained. The frequency of inspections and visits has also increased.

Finally, all residents of Napier have been offered Covid-19 vaccinations. There is Covid-related signage in multiple languages, and residents have been provided with personal cleaning kits. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked about isolation if Covid is detected. Given that the general regulations have changed for the wider population, I imagine that it is in line with that, but I will provide more information to him if I can.

We have engaged with community stakeholders, including charities and NGOs, in relation to the site. There are regular meetings at which matters relating to the site’s operation are discussed and issues can be raised. These meetings are attended by Home Office officials, alongside representatives of the NHS, the UK Health Security Agency, the police, Folkstone and Hythe District Council and Kent County Council. In addition, several NGOs sit on the Home Office strategic engagement group and the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, where they can raise concerns and receive updates on the site.

We have recently welcomed the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to Napier to conduct a follow-up inspection at the site. We look forward to the publication of his report, which may identify further ways in which we can improve the service provided there. We remain fully and firmly committed to delivering an asylum system that is fair and effective and works in the interests of both the people of this country and those in need of refuge and sanctuary.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I thank them for raising other important issues and for their support for this Motion. I also thank the Minister for her response.

Whatever the pressure on the asylum system, and whatever the problem, Napier barracks is clearly not the answer. The Minister kept talking about destitute asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers are destitute—for example, those fleeing the war in Ukraine. She appeared to choose to ignore the findings of the report from the APPG on Immigration Detention, published today, which I summarised. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I asked about further centres similar to Napier— whether they were being planned, developed or brought into use. These plans appear to be surrounded in secrecy. The lack of an answer from the noble Baroness today unfortunately adds to that. I think she is going to intervene on me now.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am, because there is no conspiracy here. I completely neglected to answer both noble Lords on that point. Obviously, we keep our asylum accommodation estate under constant review and I will update the House with any developments if new centres are considered.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am not sure whether that was an undertaking by the noble Baroness to write to us with any details of plans in the pipeline. She is nodding, so that is helpful.

It is regrettable that Napier continues to be used to house asylum seekers but bearing in mind that we are at the end of a very long Session, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Ukraine: Refugees

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for securing this debate and for her powerful opening. I wish the Minister well with his maiden speech. He has had a few dry runs, so expectations are high.

Can the Minister confirm that, as of Sunday, only 1.6% of the 32,000 who have applied to come to the UK from Ukraine had actually arrived? The Government have apparently assumed that refugees are not wanting to move too far away from Ukraine, but it looks increasingly likely that other factors may be the cause. The Telegraph reports cases of permission to travel letters being sent by the Home Office but not being received by the intended recipients. A government spokesperson said that they were aware of a “technical issue”. What is that issue, how many families are affected and has it been resolved?

On Twitter this morning it was alleged that only one member of each family was being granted a visa, meaning that the family, wanting to stay together, was unable to travel to the UK. This was responded to by someone else who said that only two out of three visas for his family had been issued. Is this conspiracy or cock-up? Is this a deliberate move by the Home Office to keep refugees out of the UK or are applications from the same family not being cross-referenced and dealt with together? It appears that, whether by accident or design, the actions of the Home Office are preventing even those granted visas from travelling to the UK. The Home Office estimated on 18 March, when the refugee schemes opened, that it would be able to process 10,000 visas in that first week, but it actually achieved less than one-tenth of that. Can the Minster confirm that he has set a target of 15,000 a week and say when he expects to achieve it?

In the Telegraph today, it is alleged that the Foreign Office is refusing to provide staff to help to process visa applications, saying that it is the Home Office’s problem. It has also been suggested that, despite being offered bonuses to work overtime and rest days, processing is likely to be impacted by staff taking time off over the Easter holidays. Are these factors going to impact on the Minister’s ambitions and are, as has been suggested, things going to get worse before they get better? Can he also confirm that he has set a target of 48 hours to process an application for a mother and child, but that it is currently taking on average a week, and that phase two, whereby organisations and businesses can offer accommodation to Ukrainian refugees, has been delayed until after Easter?

The Minister is quoted as saying:

“We did not have, and we’ve never had, a proper system of administering the mass flow of people from abroad.”


This House passed amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill to ensure that the Government set up and maintain the necessary systems, processes and support to local authorities to be able to cope with the sort of influx of refugees that we are currently seeing from Ukraine. If the Minister is correct, this would appear to be desperately needed. These delays are causing distress and costs that people cannot afford. Families here in the UK are desperate to offer a home to Ukrainian refugees, and Ukrainian refugees are stuck abroad with no money and nowhere to live.

According to the Telegraph, British families are paying thousands of pounds to keep refugees in hotels in places such as Warsaw, which they can ill afford, when they have spare rooms that the refugees could move into today. Sponsoring families are being left out of pocket and emotionally drained. Families who were linked up two weeks ago under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are still waiting for their visa applications to be processed and are not being given any information about progress.

Delays are being blamed on decades-old technology, with security checks being undertaken on a limited number of specialist terminals in secure parts of designated Home Office buildings, identity documents being processed through a second system and decisions being taken on a third, where data from the other two systems is entered manually. Can the Minister confirm that?

If these delays are inevitable, as the Minister apparently thinks they are, why do the Government not process refugees here in the UK, rather than before they travel? Why is it that almost every other European country is able to provide visa-free entry, but the UK is not? The Home Office is blaming No. 10 for insisting on a separate bespoke system for Ukrainian refugees. Others are blaming MI5 for insisting on security checks, while others say that the security services have no security concerns. Others are quoted as saying that the Home Office is insisting on putting security checks above everything else. On the one hand, we are hearing that Priti Patel was in favour of a much more open scheme to allow Ukrainian refugees to come to the UK, but her plans were vetoed by Steve Barclay, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, but on the other hand we are hearing that MI5 had strong views on the need for checks, so not doing so was never really considered by the Home Office. Can the Minister please explain where the truth lies?

Another reported excuse is that the Home Office wants to avoid “Windrush on steroids”, where thousands of people would be left without the necessary documentation to claim welfare, education, jobs and healthcare. But refugees with permission to travel letters are being told that when they present themselves at the UK border they will be given an entry stamp in their passport and that they can then use the stamp in their passport to access jobs and services. I ask again: why can they not be processed on arrival?

When the refugees arrive, local authorities are asking for a clear framework for housing checks, guidance on safeguarding beyond the initial DBS check and a clear steer on what to do when placements break down and require rematching. They are having serious issues with data quality, including access, duplication and missing information. Families are arriving under the family visa route with nowhere to live and children are getting visas under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and arriving without an accompanying adult. Some councils are being told that the £10,500 is only for the first year and it is only available under the Homes for Ukraine scheme in any event, although those coming via the family route also need access to council services. Third-party support services, such as translation services, ESOL and healthcare, particularly mental health care, are receiving no additional funding. Can the Minister explain what additional support will be made available for those services?

Finally, can the Minister confirm that work on other visas, such as work, study and Afghan visas, has been stopped, as all staff are diverted to deal with the Ukrainian crisis? What will the implications be on other visa applications?

We are here to hold the Government to account. We need clear answers, if the Minister can provide them, or does he, like us, see a good deal of willingness surrounded by a great deal of confusion, inefficiency and ineffectiveness?