Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

The noble Baroness has explained that the draft Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are intended to improve the levels of assurance about the identities of those passing through or coming to the United Kingdom through the use and retention of biometric information obtained for immigration and nationality purposes. It is part of the Government’s move from physical documents to digital, despite the problems already identified where EU citizens with either settled or pre-settled status are being detained at the UK border. Many of these issues could be quickly and easily resolved if, as this House repeatedly told the Government, physical proof had been provided of settled status alongside digital recording.

While we are on the subject, what happens to EU citizens who have applied for settled status but who have yet to receive a response from the Home Office? I have some knowledge in this regard. I have an email from the Norwegian authorities to show that my application for residency in Norway has been submitted. I have to show it at the Norwegian border to prove that I continue to have the right of residence while my application is being considered. Can the noble Baroness please tell the Committee what happens at the UK border? What instructions are given to Border Force staff about pending decisions on settled status?

As the noble Baroness acknowledges, there is a wide range of different provisions in this SI, as we are accustomed to when it comes to immigration legislation, making it difficult to scrutinise—hence only Front-Bench participation in this debate, which is worrying for an affirmative procedure statutory instrument.

“Take back control of our borders”, the noble Baroness continues to say, and that prompts me to continue to say that visa-free entry to the United Kingdom has recently been extended to nine other countries, as well as being retained for EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Therefore, the claim that we are taking back control of our borders has a certain hollow ring to it.

The regulations allow a photograph to be taken and retained in limited circumstances when someone passes through the border; for example, where a person cannot produce a photo ID document such as a passport or does not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That photograph can also be taken subsequently by appointment. Photographs can also be taken of the dependants of individuals in these limited circumstances. The photograph may be retained only where there is already a power to do so and can be used to investigate an offence or for other limited purposes. It must be destroyed when it is no longer needed; for example, when it is established that the person is a British citizen.

Retention of fingerprints is extended from 10 years to 15 years, as the noble Baroness said, with the ability to retain them beyond that date if necessary; for example, where the person is subject to a deportation order. Photographs are retained until the person obtains a United Kingdom passport. Biometric data can also be reused; for example, when a further application is made. The clock resets when the further application is processed. At the end of the 15-year period the fingerprints must be destroyed and digital copies must be made irretrievable, and someone is entitled to a certificate to prove that this has been done.

I understand that fingerprints do not change significantly during a lifetime, but the facial appearance of a person does, which is why photo ID such as driving licences and passports require regular renewal. Do the Government intend to require those whom they have taken facial photographs of to have a photograph retaken, say, every five years?

I am a little concerned that the regulations state that, where information is different in physical and digital forms, the digital information takes precedence. I understand that, if someone’s immigration status is revoked and the physical document is not in the possession of the Secretary of State, it can be changed digitally, and in such cases the digital record takes precedence. But is this always the case? Could there be circumstances where the digital record is wrong, for some reason? Should not cases therefore be decided on their merits, rather than by setting down in legislation that the digital copy automatically takes precedence? Aside from these concerns, we are content with these regulations.

On the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2021, the Government seem intent on making immigration and nationality fees a money generator. Despite the fact that photographs and fingerprints can be reused at the press of a button each time someone applies for an extension of leave to remain, instead of a person being sent to an appointment to give their fingerprints and photographs, the Government still claim that

“as the departmental processing costs for reuse are similar to those for taking fresh biometrics the fee must remain.”

Can the Minister explain how the cost of copying and pasting fingerprints and photographs electronically from an existing application to a new applications is similar to that of arranging for a person to attend in person and an official taking their fingerprints and photograph? I know from personal experience of having taken many fingerprints from individuals that that can be a difficult and time-consuming process. Is this not just another example of digital efficiency producing more profit for the Home Office?

On premium services, can the Minister explain what impact people paying even more to the Home Office for optional premium services has on what the Explanatory Notes refer to as the “standard or basic service”? Does the Home Office employ additional staff to provide premium services, or is the time taken for the standard or basic service longer the more people avail themselves of the premium service?

It is noted that the definition of premium service, previously restricted to services in connection with immigration and nationality applications, is to be extended to immigration and nationality generally. While the Government provide the example of Border Force officers checking passports on carriers at sea, which some carriers choose to pay for, one can also foresee a situation where Border Force could charge a fee for fast-track immigration at airports. Can the Minister explain what impact premium services such as checking passports on carriers at sea have on the capacity of Border Force to process passengers at air and sea ports? Do the Government have any plans to introduce fast-track entry for a price at UK borders?

Will any income generated by these premium services be used to provide more Border Force officers, or will the already unacceptable waiting times at UK borders simply be extended for those unwilling or unable to pay for a premium service? We are very concerned about the widening of the definition of premium services as set out in these regulations.

Immigration Rules: Statements of Changes

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is not often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, but to the following extent I do. The changes to the Immigration Rules contained in these statements are, as many other noble Lords have said, complex and bewildering. The Home Secretary heralds such changes as simplifying immigration law, but that is akin to simplifying pi by rounding it to the first 500 decimal places. It is only the most glaring changes that stand out, unless you are an immigration lawyer. How can Parliament hold the Government to account in such circumstances, when the changes have already come into effect and the other place has not even debated them yet? I am talking about more than just scale and complexity. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, the Home Office has the ability to make substantial changes through these statements.

Many of us were outraged that the Government, in their New Plan for Immigration, sought to treat genuine asylum seekers who have a legal right to claim asylum in the UK less favourably, just because they arrived in the UK by irregular routes. However, in these changes to the Immigration Rules, the Government have gone further, so that the Home Office does not even have to consider whether there is any merit in the claim, if the refugee has travelled to the UK through any so-called “safe” third country—unless, after six months of desperately trying to deport the refugee, it has failed to do so.

Previously, under EU Dublin III, if a refugee had claimed asylum in another EU country, their application could be ruled inadmissible and they could be returned to the country where they made their first claim. Under these new rules, an asylum claim can be ruled inadmissible just because the refugee travelled via a so-called “safe” third country, whether or not they have previously claimed asylum, and whether or not any of the countries through which they have travelled is willing to take them back. In fact, the rules allow the UK to send a refugee to any “safe” country in the world that is willing to take them, even a country the refugee has never been to and has no connection with.

Can the Minister confirm that, for six months, the substantive claim for asylum will not even be considered in such cases? The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has confirmed that the European Commission is not allowing bilateral agreements between the UK and EU member states, so all this means is that genuine refugees who arrived in the UK via irregular routes will be kept in the UK at taxpayers’ expense for an additional six months before their application is even considered.

The explanatory notes say:

“A stronger approach to disincentivise individuals is needed to deter claimants leaving safe third countries such as EU Member States, from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys”.


I have heard first hand from young asylum seekers who have made it to the UK, and their testimony is clear that places such as Italy and France are not safe, particularly for young unaccompanied refugees. Also, refugees are often English speaking, some with family already in the UK.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, there are no longer any “safe and legal” routes for refugees to take. The few routes that were open to some of them involved having to be identified by the UNHCR while they were in refugee camps, then often waiting for two years or more, undergoing numerous interviews, before finally being accepted. For many it is too dangerous to wait in such circumstances, so they make their own way.

Many of these refugees have endured years of suffering in their own country. Some have been tortured. They have faced dangerous journeys, extending over many months and hundreds of miles. Do the Government seriously think an extra six-month wait, albeit in inadequate Army barracks in the UK, will deter them? As a result, in the past six months, over 1,500 applications have been placed on hold and, despite a 24% drop in applications over the last 12 months, more than 50,000 have now been waiting over six months for their asylum applications to be determined—an increase of 71% on the year before.

There are also important questions arising out of these changes to the Immigration Rules concerning EU citizens in the UK who are awaiting the outcome of their settled status applications or who have applied late. But this totally inadequate means of holding the Government to account—with six-minute speech limits—means I cannot even raise these important questions on the Floor of the House. The whole process, and what the Government are trying to do around immigration, is a disgrace.

Net Migration

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, one of the things we discussed in previous debates was employers in this country not seeking to use cheap migrant labour but to rely on our domestic labour supply. We want a fair system for asylum seekers with safe, legal routes.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Home Secretary has made a lot of strengthening our approach to criminality and implementing powers to refuse entry to arrivals convicted of certain criminal offences. How can this be when EU citizens are still allowed to enter the UK without a visa and the UK has lost real-time access to the EU criminal records database? How does Border Force know whether a passenger crossing the UK border has a criminal record?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, from 1 July it will be incumbent upon people who enter this country to do so through a legal route, and the immigration system will be operating from then. It is right that we provide inadmissibility for people who do not come through those safe and legal routes.

Daniel Morgan: Independent Panel Report

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, when the Metropolitan police service refused to allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission to visit the scene of the police shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, I went to the then Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and told him it was the most stupid decision I had ever heard of in policing, because it would give credence to people who were expecting a cover-up. The second most stupid decision must be that of the Home Secretary to block the publication of a report into an alleged establishment cover-up over the investigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan. Does the Minister not see the parallels?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not see how there can have been a cover-up, if the Home Secretary has not yet received the report. We need to be very careful about the series of events that are required for publication to take place. I am sure that, like the noble Lord, we all look forward to the report being published in Parliament.

Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, not only are the Government insisting on in-person physical right-to-work checks but some parents say they are being asked by schools to produce passports to prove their child’s right to education as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office is requiring schools to do this and, if so, on what legal basis? If it is not, will the Minister take urgent steps to stop this practice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for a heads-up this morning, and it is important to say to him that Brexit has not changed the rights of foreign nationals to access schools. State schools do not have a role in policing the immigration system. Independent schools, with sponsor licences, do have an explicit duty to have documents proving the right to stay in the UK. I do not know the details of the noble Lord’s case, but I would be most grateful to have some further detail, and perhaps we can discuss it further.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have to get used to Grand Committee not being able to unmute me and having to do it myself, unlike in the Chamber. However, we shall go now.

I thank the Minister for introducing this order, which brings three benzodiazepines under part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act, owing to their potential harm and prevalence in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, quite rightly highlighted the issues associated with similar drugs that are legally overprescribed. As the noble Baroness mentioned, these drugs are related to Rohypnol, the so-called date rape drug, and to Xanax and Valium—well-known anti-anxiety drugs that are highly addictive, or, as the Minister called it, resulting in high dependency. In addition to their potential use to sedate victims by perpetrators of sexual offences, they are respiratory suppressants that can lead to the shutting down of the respiratory system and death, particularly if taken in conjunction with alcohol or similar drugs.

Of course, we on these Benches take a harm-reduction approach to the misuse of drugs, and the fact that one of these drugs has resulted in 12 deaths in the UK is of concern. Can the Minister give any more details of the circumstances of these deaths? Were they people with mental health issues who were self-medicating? Were they people who had taken these drugs in combination with other drugs or alcohol recreationally? Or were they drugged by others?

I ask these questions as there are concerns that the lack of mental health services for those suffering from anxiety and the extended waiting times for people to receive treatment, together with the stigma of suffering from poor mental health, may be driving people to seek substances such as these as a means of immediate relief from their symptoms, without seeking professional medical help. Pushing people into seeking drugs where there is little or no quality control and where the amount of active ingredient contained in each pill can vary enormously can lead to accidental overdose, with disastrous consequences.

Can the Minister point to any research that demonstrates the efficacy of moving psychoactive substances such as these from being covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 into being included as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? How less likely are people to take these drugs as a result of this sort of order? Does the Minister not agree that, as far as most young people in particular are concerned, it makes little difference whether a drug is illegal under the Psychoactive Substances Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act, and that even the classification of the drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act has little impact on the attitudes of those who misuse drugs towards different substances?

Is it not time for an overhaul of the whole approach to the misuse of drugs, adopting a health-based, harm reduction approach based on educating people, particularly the young, as to the effects and dangers of different drugs, rather than an emphasis of police and other criminal justice system resources on criminalising the misuse of drugs that often have only a minimal effect? Diverting resources away from the so-called war on drugs and into effective mental health provision to reduce reliance on drugs, into drug treatment for those addicted, and into education on the effects and dangers of drugs misuse would be a far more effective way of dealing with the issues that this order is intended to deal with.

Is this order no more than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic that is the drugs-misuse crisis in the UK? The Government’s failure to have any lasting impact on the supply side of the illegal drugs market surely suggests that the focus should now shift to the demand side, reducing the demand for controlled drugs through adequate mental health provision, education and treatment of addiction. We do not oppose the order, we just ask: what evidence is there that it will be of any benefit?

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these statutory instruments. My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted has raised important issues relating to the operation of the legislation more broadly, but as far as these SIs are concerned, the first relates to the code of practice covering cash searches under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which needed to be revised as a result of the powers extended by Section 22 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Although these new powers were brought into effect in Great Britain shortly after Royal Assent, as the noble Baroness explained, the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly in February 2017, until its reconstitution in January 2020, prevented the Home Office seeking the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly to commence the relevant provisions of the 2017 Act in Northern Ireland. The Home Office has now secured that approval, hence this and the other four SIs.

Although this SI and the others being debated simply bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is a good reason why this was not possible before, there is one aspect of this first SI on which I seek further information from the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the codes of practice require

“an officer who is contemplating using the powers to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest and the benefit … the powers would add to the case.”

For me, who has no knowledge or experience of Northern Ireland, that still has particular resonance for Northern Ireland. Could the Minister explain further what the impact might be of the use of these powers in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland? Is there a potential for the use of these powers to be particular sensitive against the background of the Province? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, mentioned that there was a protocol between, I think, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Is this further evidence of such sensitivity? The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, wondered whether there was a diversity impact assessment and a human rights assessment, again suggesting that there might be particular issues in Northern Ireland that are not as relevant to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The second SI relates to revised codes of practice relating to the investigative powers of prosecutors to cover unexplained wealth orders, interim freezing orders, disclosure orders, extending the powers of members of staff of the Serious Fraud Office, detained property and frozen funds investigations. These are again the result of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 amending powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. As with the other SIs, other than drafting changes and responses outside the scope of the SIs, there were no responses to the public consultation. In addition, I understand that the Home Office has invited representations from the Attorney-General’s Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government, in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime Act, and each organisation has confirmed that it is content.

The third SI relates to revised codes of practice for investigations concerning the use of general asset recovery investigation powers in Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, now that these provisions are being enacted in Northern Ireland. These are codes of practice for officers and other persons exercising their functions under POCA, as opposed to those for prosecutors contained in the second SI.

The fourth SI relates to the need for a revised code of practice in connection with the search, seizure and recovery of certain listed assets, such as precious metals and stones, watches, art works, vouchers and postage stamps, as opposed to the first, which relates to cash, gaming vouchers, fixed-value casino tokens and betting slips.

The fifth SI relates to a revised codes of practice in connection with the search, seizure and detention of property, such as cars, jewellery, electric goods and clothing, that is often of high value and can be easily moved, hidden or sold during a confiscation investigation following a criminal conviction. As with all these SIs, the need for the change is the result of the enactment of changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act made by the Criminal Finance Act 2017 that were delayed in Northern Ireland as a result of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a result, with the exception of the community impact concerns, we are content with the orders.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall respond to the Minister and the Government’s amendment on the safe reporting of crimes by domestic abuse victims who have uncertain immigration status. I am very grateful to our Ministers for their sympathetic handling of this Bill and for the incredibly helpful meetings that we have had with all of them in previous weeks, and to the Government for tabling the compromise amendment. Of course, it does not achieve the reassurance that we sought with our original amendment, but it paves a way forward that could help these most vulnerable of women.

I welcome the fact that the report on the government review of this issue will be laid before Parliament and that this is put in statute by the Government’s amendment. That is definitely a step forward. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the review will seek to identify the depth of fear of many of the victims of concern here. That is important—about half do not report crimes because they are too frightened, in particular in situations of modern slavery, for example. A concern in the field is that the six-month possible extension for the publication of the review could be used by the Government to prevent anyone making progress in the meantime. Three months would be greatly preferable. Does the Minister have any comment on that? Do they really need six months to complete this? If it means that they will do a more thorough job, I suppose we must be grateful.

Turning to the code of practice, I am concerned about subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, which says that the Secretary of State

“may issue a code of practice”

rather than that they “shall” issue such a code. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising in his remarks that the Government have a clear intention to issue such a code. It would also be helpful if he could indicate in his closing comments a timeline for the code of practice and confirm its purpose—again, this is an important point—to provide protection from the immigration system for vulnerable victims of domestic abuse whose immigration status is uncertain.

The amendment makes it clear that the domestic abuse commissioner, the Information Commissioner and

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

must be consulted in relation to this code of practice. I put on record the importance of consulting survivors and specialist organisations such as the Step Up Migrant Women campaign, which, incidentally, apart from doing a huge amount of work to support these women, has been a pillar of strength in the background, behind these debates in this House. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that those survivors and organisations will be consulted. With the hope that the Minister can provide some assurance on these points, I will not oppose the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the essence of this Motion is to ensure that victims of domestic abuse, whoever they are, are not afraid to come forward to report the matter to the police without fear of being reported to immigration enforcement. No review or code of practice will reassure them without an undertaking that enforcement action will not be taken. The Government know this, and I therefore conclude that they place more importance on immigration enforcement than on protecting the victims of domestic abuse—a disgraceful position for the Government to take. We will not allow this matter to rest here, even though we are unable to take it further today.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has received strong support from the Opposition Benches throughout the progress of this important Bill, and that support is not diminished at this final stage. We will continue to press the Government on this very serious issue, to make sure victims can feel safe coming forward to report abuse. It has been a pleasure to learn from her and work with her on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment provided for the circumstances where victims’ data cannot be shared for immigration purposes if they come forward to report abuse. She is content to agree the important concessions that she has obtained from the Government on her amendment and, to that end, it just leaves me to thank her and all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and with passion throughout the passage of the Bill.

In the other place yesterday, the shadow Minister spoke movingly about her own experiences and reiterated her thanks for some movement by the Government on this amendment. But I echo her remarks of concern by asking the Minister if we can ensure that there are buy-in services for the very victims we are talking about, that they are consulted throughout the process, and that the whole point of the code is explicitly there to ensure that data can be shared only to enable victims to receive protection and safety. We now have mention of a victims’ code, so what happens when there is a breach of the code? We need clarity; we seek to have things written into primary legislation so that there is no doubt when barriers are crossed.

I eagerly await the translation into law of this landmark legislation. I thank my Opposition Front Bench colleagues and the staff team who have so ably guided me through my first major Bill in this House; what a maiden Bill it has been to have contributed to. My thanks go to the Minister and others who have listened and acted upon amendments to make better laws alongside our charities, support organisations and, indeed, the brave survivors whose lived experiences and testimonies have spoken out loudly and clearly throughout the course of the Bill: stand up to domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who moved the successful amendment on migrant women and recourse to public funds during the first stage of ping-pong in this House on the Domestic Abuse Bill last Wednesday, regrets that she cannot be here in person today. I pay tribute to the work that she has done—and will, I am sure, continue to do—on this issue. On her behalf, I have been asked to say the following, which also reflects my feelings:

“I would urge the Government to consider all victims of domestic abuse as victims first. It is therefore regrettable that recourse to public funds has not been made available to a small but extremely vulnerable group of migrant victims. That said, at this stage, we accept that it has not been possible to add this to the Bill. We hope that when the pilot scheme comes to an end, careful note will be taken of the results. The organisations providing support and hope to these migrant victims must be consulted, and we would do well to listen well to their experience.”

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for championing this issue.

Again, I will boil this down to its essence. The refusal of the Government to offer equal protection to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, which is the effect of their rejection of the Lords amendment, is a clear breach of the Istanbul convention. As I said when we considered these matters last time, this Government cannot claim that this is a landmark Bill when they continue to treat those with irregular immigration status less favourably. These are some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse.

We are unable to take this matter further today, but the Government cannot avoid ratifying the Istanbul convention much longer without serious reputational damage.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her work on this Bill. I hope I have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill, including in my introductory remarks today, that people—women mostly—who are victims of domestic abuse should get the support that they need when they need it.

On the Istanbul convention, as set out in our latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of it, published last October, the position on whether or not we are compliant with Article 43 of the convention, to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59 relating to resident status, is under review, pending the findings of the evaluation of the support for migrant victims scheme. We will consider compliance with Article 59 in parallel with Article 43. As such, it also depends on the outcome of the support for migrant victims scheme. Far from not being compliant, we are working towards that compliance. I hope that noble Lords are content with what I have set out today and in previous stages of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

A Member in the Chamber has indicated his wish to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I should be sitting on a Back Bench, but there is no space on our Back Benches. Noble Lords might perhaps just assume that I am speaking from the Back Benches.

I have not spoken on this issue before but, as a former senior police officer, I feel that I should say a few words. I agree with the Minister that this is largely a failure of implementation rather than of legislation, but the movers of these amendments have had to resort to legislation due to frustration with the lack of progress in improving the situation. This could potentially be the result of a lack of resources, or, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, there is a need for a change of culture—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also alluded. It is very welcome that the Government are looking to refresh and strengthen the MAPPA statutory guidance. I recommend that, if at all possible, they consult with Laura Richards; I was going to say that she is an acknowledged expert, but she is the expert in this area.

One question I have for the Minister that causes me some concern relates to her remarks about stalking “within a domestic abuse context”. Stalking needs to be addressed both within and without the domestic abuse context. Can she please reassure us on that point?

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, but I confess to being somewhat confused. Before I get on to that, I pay tribute the work that our security services and police do to keep us safe in the face of a substantial threat.

On 27 February 2020, the Government brought forward a similar order, proscribing the white supremacist group Sonnenkrieg Division—Sonnenkrieg means “sun war” in German—or SKD. My confusion is because SKD is apparently the British branch of Atomwaffen Division—Atomwaffen means “nuclear weapons” in German—which is based in the southern United States and is heavily influenced by extremist Islamist ideology in that it encourages neo-Nazis to kill and die for the cause. As I said almost 14 months ago in this House, the overlap between extremist Islamists, who advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and liberal values, and neo-Nazis is worrying. One of Atomwaffen Division’s followers apparently sees ISIL as preferable to multi- culturalism and liberal values.

As the Minister said, it recruits young people and has been active on university campuses in the United States. Some members of the British SKD convicted of terrorism offences were teenagers. Will the Minister explain why the Government are only now proscribing an organisation—Atomwaffen Division—that even Wikipedia says is also known as National Socialist Order, whose British branch was proscribed 14 months ago?

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that an instrument such as this

“which imposes duties that are significantly more onerous than before should not usually be brought into force earlier than 21 days after it is made … However, any significant delay between the laying and coming into force of the Order would alert the organisation to its impending proscription and may result in pre-emptive action by the organisation’s members designed to circumvent the provisions of TACT and/or the criminal law.”

Can the Minister explain, given that the British branch of Atomwaffen Division was proscribed 14 months ago, and that the National Socialist Order is named in Wikipedia as an alias, why it would come as a surprise to anybody that the parent organisation is now being proscribed? The only surprise is that the parent organisation, the British branch of which was proscribed 14 months ago, is only now being proscribed.

I accept that one of the factors considered by the Secretary of State is the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK, but another is the need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism. Surely, the United States of America is one of those partners. Bearing in mind that Atomwaffen Division is based in the southern United States, why was it not proscribed at the same time as the British branch of the same organisation, the Sonnenkrieg Division, 14 months ago? Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Home Secretary believes that AWD is almost certainly now operating under the name NSO in the United States”


in the same way as Atomwaffen Division was operating in United States between 2015 and 2020. Yet it is only now that Atomwaffen Division is being proscribed—more than a year since it claimed to have disbanded following pressure from US law enforcement.

Of course, we support this order, but we also have serious questions as to why it has taken so long to proscribe Atomwaffen Division and its alias, National Socialist Order.

Immigration

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Statement is apparently geared to what the Government describe as “illegal immigration”. In the Commons, the Home Secretary referred to “a broken system”—the Government’s words. After nearly 11 years in office, it is this Government who are responsible for the present system and its consequences, and it is time that the Government accepted their failings.

In 2010, the Government’s policy was to reduce net migration below 100,000. That policy—whether one agreed with it or not—was not implemented. We have never had an explanation from the Government as to why, nor will we have one today, because they will not wish to admit that it would have damaged our economy. It was certainly nothing to do with membership of the EU and free movement, because that was a known factor at the time when the policy was drawn up. That policy was clearly not drawn up with the intention that it would be implemented; it was simply because the Government wanted to attract headlines for sounding tough on reducing the number of people coming to this country. Time will tell whether the real purpose of this Statement falls into the same category.

We have a broken system because, over the last decade, the Government have been more interested in sounding tough to secure headlines than in addressing the broken system over which they now admit they have presided for some years and continue to preside. The Statement says that the Government’s current broken system

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately waiting to be resettled in the UK.”

It also refers to the system being overwhelmed, and to the

“persistent failure to enforce our immigration laws”.

Who exactly do the Government think is responsible for that failure which they have now recognised? The Statement also refers to the

“pathway to citizenship to enable over five million people in Hong Kong to come to the UK.”

We welcome this. Five million is somewhat larger than the 16,000 unauthorised arrivals detected in the UK in 2019 and which apparently

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection.”

This assumes that none of the 16,000 is also in need of protection because they are fleeing war and persecution or, in the Government’s view, even worthy of protection simply because of the way in which they have reached this country.

The Hong Kong pathway is evidence of the need for safe, legal routes for those in need of refuge. Can the Government say how many of the 5 million eligible people in Hong Kong they expect to come to the UK? The policy statement says that

“an estimated 320,000 people [may] come to the UK over the next five years.”

How was that estimate arrived at and how many is it estimated may come from Hong Kong to the UK after the first five years? Can the Government also confirm that there is no restriction on the numbers of people in Hong Kong who are rightly allowed to come to the UK being able to do so?

The Statement says that, under the Government’s broken system, 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. No doubt, this is—at least in part—because the Government have allowed the share of applications receiving an initial decision within six months to fall from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. Why did the Government let that happen? Why are so many appeals successful? Are the Government going to tell us that it is all the fault of “leftie lawyers” or will they at last accept responsibility for the system which they now describe as “broken” and “collapsing”?

The Government have previously told us about pending agreements with France to stop criminal gangs involved in the terrible crime of human trafficking. What has happened to those promised agreements? The Statement is silent on that issue, though the policy statement tells us that, in 2019, 32,000 attempts to enter the UK by unauthorised groups were prevented in northern France.

The Government have previously referred to those who have arrived here through non-recognised routes being returned to the first country in which they could have sought asylum, or to another country. With which countries have the Government reached agreement to take back those seeking asylum who have arrived here through non-recognised routes? Is it their view of the provisions of international law and of the Refugee Convention that refugees fleeing war and persecution have to claim asylum in the first safe country through which they pass, and that they have no right to transit through another country to get to this country to claim asylum? Many would disagree with this stance is correct or right, but is it the Government’s position?

What safe and legal routes currently exist by which refugees, including children, can reach this country, following our departure from the EU and the ending of the Dublin arrangements? This is on top of the earlier abrupt cessation of the Dubs scheme. Is there any limit on the number of refugees who can come to the UK by safe and legal routes? If so, what is it? If there are no, or minimal, safe and legal routes, that is only going to make dangerous and unauthorised entries to this country, including through traffickers—whether by small boat, air, in the back of a lorry or a shipping container—more, not less likely.

The Government claim that, since our departure from the EU, we have control of our borders. Does that mean that implementing what is set out in the Statement is not dependent on reaching agreements with any other countries? Does claiming that we have control of our borders mean that, at all our ports of entry, the level of checks will be such that the likelihood of successful, unauthorised entry into this country is minimal?

Finally, how will success or failure of the policies set out in the Statement be judged? What will be the criteria, yardsticks and statistics against which the Government will make this assessment?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement claims to have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement. Not only can EU citizens continue to enter the UK without a visa, using the e-passport gates at UK airports, but rather than taking back control of legal immigration the Government have extended the use of these e-passport gates to a further seven countries. Before, citizens of those countries had to have a valid reason for entry, enough money to sustain them and evidence that they would leave again. As a result, thousands were turned away at the UK border every year. Can the Minister say what checks are now done on these visitors?

The Statement says that people are dying at sea. Is this not because safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers are inadequate or non-existent? How many safe and legal routes are open to genuine asylum seekers? Can the Minister explain how vulnerable people in a war zone can apply under such a scheme? What advice does she have for legitimate seekers of sanctuary in those parts of the world with no safe and legal routes to the UK?

The Statement says that the UK’s asylum system should be based on need. Yet the Government propose to set up a two-tier system, based not on need or the validity of someone’s claim but on how they got to the UK. Are the Government aware of Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? It states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”


Are the Government’s proposals to penalise those who do not use safe and legal routes—routes which do not currently exist and for which the Government have no firm plans or timetable—not in contravention of its international obligations?

The Statement talks about someone illegally entering the UK from France. Can the Minister say on which piece of legislation the Government rely when they claim that asylum seekers who travel through a safe country to get to the UK can only claim asylum in that safe country? Even if they had claimed asylum in an EU country, what mechanism will the Government use to deport them, now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin regulation?

The Statement claims that the immigration system “is collapsing” under the pressure of asylum applications. In the early 2000s, around 100,000 people a year were claiming asylum in the UK. In 2020, it was 36,000—a reduction of almost two-thirds, despite an increase in the number of people crossing the channel in small boats. Is the reason that the system is collapsing not channel crossings but Home Office mismanagement? Is the reason for the increase in channel crossings not due to the fact that people can no longer claim asylum from outside the UK?

Can the Minister confirm how many of the 42,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country are in the process of appealing a Home Office decision, when, on average, 50% of those claims are usually successful? Of those who have exhausted the legal process, why has the Home Office not deported them?

This is not a common-sense approach to controlling immigration. This Statement highlights a catalogue of government failures, along with an illegal proposal to discriminate against those legally seeking sanctuary in the UK and a hollow promise to help the most vulnerable at some unspecified date in the future. The policy has thrown open the UK border to even more countries while slamming the door shut on genuine asylum seekers. I have the greatest respect for the Minister—even though she rises in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I found them quite interesting. I always find the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, interesting. However, in a funny way we agree on some of the issues, although it would not seem so on the face of it. The last question that the noble Lord asked was: why has the Home Office not deported people who have exhausted their claims? In the proposals is the idea of a one-stop process in order that people do not keep on bringing claims, including on the steps of the plane or whatever the mode of transport might be, when being returned to their country of origin. The noble Lord asked why there had been an increase in channel crossings. It is due to criminality. There is a commonality within this House and the other place that we want to stop that criminality. All that it does is feed human misery and cause deaths, quite often in the English Channel. The criminals are the only ones who profit from it.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked a totally fair question: what are the legal routes? The legal routes are not being proposed but asked about in the consultation process, in which I hope a lot of people will engage. In fact, thousands have done so already in relation to what legal and safe routes look like. Resettlement, whereby we have given refuge to more than 45,000 people since 2010, has been an incredibly efficient way in which to get to this country from the regions really vulnerable people who need our refuge. Obviously, if someone has a visa and the situation changes while they are in this country, that is another legal route. A good example of that might be Myanmar at the moment. If there is no visa regime in place in the country of origin, people can travel to the UK to claim asylum. But, as I say, there are the three obvious routes, including resettlement, and a consultation process is under way, which will elucidate the answers for the Government to consider.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, talked about controlling our borders and leaving the EU. Yes, we make absolutely no bones about that. One of the reasons why the British public decided that they wanted to leave the EU was so that we could take control of our borders. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right; it is not necessarily any more about numbers but about having control over who comes in and out.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about the BNOs. The estimate that about 320,000 people will come here is correct; there is no restriction on them. He also talked about people from war-torn countries. Of course, they are the very people we want to give refuge to. That was the origin of the resettlement scheme: so that people in Syria and the MENA region could get our refuge. We have now extended resettlement to include anywhere in the world where people might be vulnerable as a result of either persecution or war.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about successful appeals. That goes back, again, to the one-step process. Appeals are frustrating the whole process of giving genuine people asylum, and it is important that we do not allow gaming of the system. We want the most vulnerable to be able to avail themselves of our asylum.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about pending agreements with France. Yes, discussions continue with EU partners and he will know that I do want to go into the details of that on the Floor of the House. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether we are complying with the refugee convention. Yes, we are. On the issue of first safe country, the system was established under Dublin. It is nothing new that people who arrive in safe countries should not then seek to come to this country if, in fact, they have been given refuge in a safe country. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also raised the issue of inadmissibility rules. They are of long standing and existed under Dublin.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the abrupt cessation of the Dubs scheme. The number of people under it was based on the ability of local authorities to take asylum seekers. We made it very clear to Parliament at the time—and Parliament was in agreement—that we could not commit to bringing people here if we could not house them within local authorities.

In terms of e-gates, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right. The ability to get into this country via the e-gates has been extended to include seven countries. However, if you have not signed up to the EU settlement scheme and, therefore, cannot prove your right to work or rent, your journey is very restricted thereafter. The noble Lord asked how someone in a war zone applies. This is why I keep talking about resettlement—someone in a war zone should be picked up within our resettlement schemes. I repeat: some 45,500 people have been given refuge since 2010. The noble Lord posited that we were going to penalise people who do not use safe and legal routes. The people we really want to penalise are the people traffickers, the criminals—those who make money out of other people’s misfortune and, quite often, death.