Passports: Strike Action and Voter ID

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. Great efforts are made to advertise the availability of the voter authority certificate. Anyone concerned that a document that they intend to use will not be available by polling day may also apply to appoint a proxy up to 5 pm on polling day itself—so considerable steps have been taken to address my noble friend’s point.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has come up with a very practical solution to this potential problem. Can the noble Lord undertake to the House and the noble Baroness that he will look at her suggestion and come up with a more considered answer?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can certainly indicate that careful consideration is given to these issues. As always, we will consider all the recommendations and advice given to this House, including from my noble friend.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree up to a point. The Government are taking a central role, not least through the review into the dismissal process that I have talked about before. I have little doubt that that will become a topical subject within the next 24 hours. That will look into the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs; more broadly, it will look at things such as the appeals mechanism and the effectiveness of the performance system, including for officers who have failed vetting. That review was launched on 17 January and was said to take about four months to conclude. We are getting towards the end of that process, so there will be more to be said.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said he has no powers to intervene. He also said there is a judicial process in which he does not want to intervene. Can he give the House a date by which that judicial process will start?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot.

Nitrous Oxide

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point but the advisory council did not actually recommend that. It said that nitrous oxide should be kept subject to the provisions in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. However, as I said earlier, we are considering all the recommendations of the report, and the Home Secretary has a duty to consider advice on whether to pursue control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that nitrous oxide is a gateway drug and may well lead to young people in particular moving on to other drugs which are even more harmful? Does he also accept that the courts and the police force find it difficult to deal with the multitude of available drugs, which are constantly changing, so there needs to be huge vigilance to try to understand the range of drugs available to our young people?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I do not have any personal knowledge of whether it is a gateway drug, but the evidence that I have seen certainly suggests that to be the case; I believe it is the third most common drug in England and Wales after cannabis and cocaine, so I suspect that the noble Lord is right. As regards vigilance, I agree; obviously we have a long-term drugs strategy to take the challenge of drug misuse very seriously. It is a 10-year strategy, significant funds have been dedicated towards it, and it includes investing significant amounts of money in an ambitious programme of drug treatment and recovery.

Public Order Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

At end insert “and do propose the following additional amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—

33C: Clause 20, page 24, line 31, at end insert—
“(d) P’s conduct was frivolous or vexatious, beyond a genuine expression of their right to protest.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the significant concessions the Government have made on serious disruption prevention orders. I believe that the clause is in a better place than when it was introduced, in part thanks to the efforts across this House; in particular, those of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

My amendment to the Minister’s Motion D seeks to make it explicit in the Bill that a magistrates’ court may issue an SDPO only if it reasonably believes that a person’s conduct has been frivolous or vexatious, to the extent that it has gone beyond a genuine expression of their inalienable right to protest. This criterion is in addition to, not instead of, that which requires that a person must have been convicted of two or more protest- related offences or contempt of court over breaches of an injunction. We believe that this is an important safeguard to the flawed clause, which we accept that the other place has voted to keep in the Bill. This change will ensure that the courts, when assessing whether someone’s behaviour warrants a prevention order of this kind, will have to rule explicitly that they have gone further than what can reasonably be interpreted as genuine protest. We hope this will protect those exercising their democratic freedoms in good faith.

I have spoken to colleagues across the House, and I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on my Motion, but I will listen with interest to other noble Lords’ contributions to this very short debate. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches accept that the amendments have been made in the Commons but are still concerned that they do not go far enough. Taking the matter back to the beginning, the bar set on which people can be convicted or the orders can eventually be issued is based on the balance of probabilities. That matter was the source of a great deal of discussion in this House. A bar has been set which is basically non-evidential, because no evidence has to be proven of what has happened. Any amendments which would raise that bar just above a zero threshold are to be commended.

Having made the orders less draconian and brought them in line with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the SPDOs are to be imposed on protesters, taking away their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, on the balance of probabilities. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services reported, in its review of public order policing, that it doubted that these orders are workable, even with a breach of the order occurring. A person attending a protest peacefully, in breach of an SPDO, is unlikely to be treated by the court in the same manner as a potential terrorist. Courts would look at the effect of an order and measure that against the breach of human rights legislation, and, in the end, the effect of an order breaching a person’s human rights could well override the effect of the order.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, pointed out in Committee, these orders would remove people’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only if a court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that depriving people of their human rights on the weakest of evidential tests was sufficient. Therefore, there is an expectation that the courts would use a breach of human rights legislation to override the effect of the SPDO.

In seeking to raise the bar from zero—the bar is sitting on the floor, as no evidence is required—these amendments at least provide an evidential activity. They require an officer to have observed the evidence behind the requirement. The requirement in the amendments before us may not be sufficient, but it certainly lifts the bar, in relation to evidence, off the floor. In fact, we need to help police officers. Police officers may be faced with situations without evidence, such as listening to somebody’s hearsay about a protester. Alternatively, they may have it in their mind that possible action will take place if they assume that a protester, who is standing peacefully and undertaking a peaceful activity, could well jump across the road, lie on the ground and stop the traffic. In those cases, they would not have any evidence that the person was about to conduct themselves in a dangerous manner, so it would be effective to introduce provisions for that. This set of amendments could provide for those matters, but, as I have said, in a very limited way.

As the noble Lord will not press his amendment to a vote, it seems to us that the Government have to consider how the courts will deal with these matters when they are placed before them, when we have human rights legislation guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom to join together with others and freedom of expression. When all those rights are being harmed, what will the courts say and are the Government sufficiently ambitious that they think that their evidence based on these rules will give the human rights opinion any credence whatever?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their thoughtful and considered contributions to this debate. As I have already detailed, the Government listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns regarding the serious disruption prevention order measures. Orders will now be applied only where individuals have been convicted of protest-related offences or breaches of protest-related injunctions on at least two occasions.

The noble Lord, Lord German, argued that serious disruption prevention orders contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not. The right to protest is fundamental and despite sensationalist claims such as that, that will not change. These orders will ensure that individuals who deliberately cause serious disruption more than twice will face justice. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR set out that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. However, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.

I hope your Lordships will be satisfied that the Government have responded with a very significant offer that addresses the key concerns expressed throughout the passage of this Bill. The Bill will better balance the rights of protesters with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives free from disruption and address the ever-evolving protest tactics we have seen employed by a selfish minority of protesters. Blocking motorways and slow walking in roads delays our life-saving emergency services, stops people getting to work and drains police resources. The British people are rightly fed up with it and are demanding action from their lawmakers.

It is time for this Bill to become law. I thank the noble Lord for saying that he will withdraw his Motion.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) withdrawn.

Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the usual channels on the Opposition Benches have just had a quick word with me, saying that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be able to contribute to the debate.

On these Benches, we welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has given us to debate the regulations and the code of practice. He has comprehensively and usefully set out his concerns. We are concerned that—first, through these sanctions on drivers, and, secondly, in the new Illegal Migration Bill, which is still being debated in the other place—the Government are failing to target the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people. Their actions never seem to go upstream to get at the smugglers and traffickers. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be focusing on stopping dangerous crossings by whichever means, whether in the back of lorries or on small boats in the channel, by exercising criminal investigations and prosecutions in co-operation with our European partners? Does the Minister agree that providing safe and legal routes to sanctuary is one way of undermining the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and trafficking?

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the need for a “coherent and holistic policy”. That theme is shared by many critics of the Government’s many actions on what they call “illegal” asylum seekers, but what my Benches and I would call “irregular” asylum seekers. The Government are flailing around all the time; they never address the need for safe routes and the need to work in partnership to target the criminal gangs. In addition, can the Minister provide an update on what investment the Government are making in officers, training and technology to prevent irregular entry at Britain’s borders?

On the specifics of the code of practice and the regulations, does the Minister recognise the validity of some of the concerns expressed by the Road Haulage Association on the clandestine vehicle checklist? I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that “clandestine” is not defined. The RHA says that the clandestine vehicle checklist is too vague and requires clarity to be of use to operators. That is in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations, that, in response to the consultation:

“Stakeholders welcomed the review of the current vehicle security Code of Practice and supported looking to articulate the required standards more clearly.”


Certainly, in the view of one of the main trade associations, the Road Haulage Association, that aim has not been fulfilled, and I will quote some of the specific points it raises. The first is that

“checking beneath HGVs is not always easy or safe especially if a vehicle has low axles”—

I presume that means, in layman’s terms, that you are expected to crawl underneath an enormous lorry, which sounds not only difficult but potentially unsafe. Then it points out:

“The section that calls for ‘checks inside vehicle for signs of unauthorised access’ is too vague, as it does not list whether trailers should be empty before loading.”


The RHA also says:

“Some checks would also be difficult to carry out with temperature-controlled vehicles as opening them requires a refrigerated environment.”


That seems a fair point. Are drivers expected to carry out checks on a refrigerated vehicle in the middle of a July or August day in France? The fourth point the RHA makes is that

“trailers filled with boxes make it impossible to check the roof for signs of forced entry, due to the impossibility of opening the … doors while on the road.”

Those objections all seem reasonable, understandable and eminently sensible, and I look forward to the Minister addressing them.

Finally, I ask the Minister about the fact that, apparently, the only statutory defence would be duress, as

“it will no longer be a statutory defence to say that an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants was in operation”.

In quite a lot of scenarios for regulated activities, the emphasis is often on whether you have an adequate policy and a system, so that, if something happens that should not have happened, you can show that you had all the preparation, systems and safeguards necessary. But apparently that would not apply in this situation; the only defence would be if the driver could show that they were put under duress, even if they had done everything reasonable in the circumstances. It is a very narrow basis for a defence.

I look forward to the Minister responding to as many of my points as possible.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we in the Labour Party support these statutory instruments because we believe we need stronger action to tackle dangerous lorry crossings, crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure the UK’s borders. Given that the maximum penalty levels have not risen since 2002, we believe it is right to look at these levels as we are now.

However, the Government have said that these measures are being put in place to tackle negligence rather than criminality. Given this, what do the Government plan to do to tackle criminal smuggling and trafficking gangs using lorries to transport migrants? How many of the 3,838 incidents during the previous financial year do the Government believe have been caused by negligence rather than criminality? How many incidents do the Government estimate these new penalty levels will prevent? How many convictions have the Government secured in the previous year against criminal gangs organising vehicle crossings of migrants? Some hauliers have said that there is little more they can do to ask their drivers to better secure their vehicles while maintaining health and safety regulations. How will the Government ensure that these fines target those who are being genuinely negligent?

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes, indeed. It is in that spirit of co-operation that the Government have determined that the appropriate method of resolving this case is to accept the present position—notwithstanding that permission to appeal was granted—to accept the judgment of the court and to make arrangements so that the scheme matches the findings of the court.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the High Court’s decision affects about 2.6 million people granted pre-settled status. Will the Government now ensure that the plan to be put in place will be quick and that settled EU citizens do not risk having their right to live here put in any jeopardy? Can the Minister say what he means by “in due course”?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that we will certainly not put in jeopardy any such residence rights. I am afraid that I am unable to confirm at this stage what “in due course” might mean, but I hope to return to the House fairly shortly to confirm the position.

National Security Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I am grateful to the Minister for stating that the regulations to establish the scheme will not be put in place until guidance has been issued. It would be helpful if he could state categorically that there will be enough time after the guidance has been released before the scheme becomes operational. There is no point in guidance being published a week before it is operational. Many people will need to familiarise themselves with it, and their knowing that they are not part of it is as important as knowing that they are. If the Minister could take the opportunity to be crystal clear about the Stiftungen, that would tidy up some loose ends. I am grateful for the way in which he has approached this.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the enhanced tier of FIRS requires the registration of arrangements to carry out any activity in the UK, or for future activities to be carried out in the UK, at the direction of a specified foreign power or entity. It also requires activities carried out by specified entities to be registered. I too am grateful for how the Government have responded, following concerns that this tier could deter legitimate activities. The Minister has introduced a series of concessions, as he mentioned in opening, which we welcome. There are outstanding issues, which I would be grateful if he could amplify in his answers.

On his Amendment 106, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about the need for regular reviews, which may highlight barriers to international collaboration. He gave examples from his family—particularly his son, who is no doubt doing important research work up at Edinburgh University. The purpose of this is to ensure that the enhanced scheme does not make the same mistakes as other schemes around the world. I draw the Australian scheme to the Minister’s attention, which I understand is currently being reviewed, given some high-profile concerns about how it is working. I look forward to his answer.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short but constructive discussion. I will turn straight to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

Amendment 91 seeks to ensure that registration under FIRS is not required when the arrangement is registered under other legislative requirements. However, somewhat contrary to the noble Lord’s assertion, I think there is a clear difference between FIRS and the National Security and Investment Act, the academic technology approval scheme and the export control regime. The Government are clear that FIRS fills a gap in our toolkit. It is worth highlighting that the focus of this enhanced tier is to provide scrutiny to UK activities directed by specified foreign powers—it is worth emphasising this; we are talking about the enhanced tier—and foreign power-controlled entities.

We consider that there will be limited circumstances where there is a risk of duplication, but we will work closely across government departments and potential registrants to keep the burden of registration to a minimum and inform our approach to using this tier of the scheme. The Government do not want to impose unnecessary burdens. We have committed to a consultation on the guidance ahead of bringing the scheme into force. If that process identifies risks of duplication, the power to target what arrangements and activities will need to be registered can be used to reduce unnecessary duplication. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis when specifying foreign powers and entities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised valid areas with regard to the sometimes complex relationships between political parties and the Governments of states, which I hope the Minister, who referred to foreign Governments, can go a little further and point to. It is absolutely right that that is one of a number of criteria set down earlier in the Bill, in Clause 32, and that the meaning of a foreign power includes

“a political party which is a governing political party”.

There will still be issues when it comes to relationships such as demand and supply and other kinds of relations, but I hope that the Minister will provide clarity and proper consultations so that, when we come to the finalised guidance and regulations, those issues will be very clear. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that, as in the earlier group, we are still hoping for that bit of clarification on the German Stiftungen and others represented by the kinds of organisations that the Stiftungen are—those that operate within a public policy and political sphere but are not directly linked to the Government or governing political parties although they are, by definition, political in their nature. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that when he winds up.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we have a number of scars on our back from legislation where we have tried to do heavy lifting in this Chamber to improve Bills. I tabled a number of amendments in Committee highlighting the concern that what had been brought forward was an unworkable scheme; I think we are now looking at a workable scheme. That is important for the security of our country.

I particularly welcome the draft registration forms, about which I had raised concerns in Committee. I am very pleased that the Minister will be having an active consultation. I am delighted that there will be an updated impact assessment. While the Minister said that that is required of the Government, in previous Bills some excuses have been made for impact assessments not to be updated, so I am very pleased about that. And on the draft regulations, as I said, I am delighted.

As I said on the earlier group, the Minister has been true to his word. I have just one final favour to ask of him. Given that I have been rather successful with colleagues in securing some concessions on this Bill, could he have a word with other Ministers, just to say that “Purvis is not always wrong”? Sometimes, we can do our job in this place; we can make the Government’s job a bit better and make unworkable schemes workable. I commend the Minister for how he has approached this so far.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, there seems to be a new approach to Ministers by buttering them up. I noticed my noble friend buttering up the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the other day, which seemed to cause amusement in the House. Nevertheless, I too thank the Minister for his response to the earlier concerns raised. The primary tier of FIRS requires the registration of

“arrangements to carry out political influence activities within the UK”,

or to arrange for such activities to be carried out in the UK,

“at the direction of a foreign principal”.

Registration of political influence activity is also required

“where the activity is being carried out by the foreign principal itself. The foreign principal will be responsible for registering political influence activities”.

As I said, concerns were raised that this could impair international co-operation through political parties and similar organisations. It was previously reported that the Government might withdraw the primary tier entirely, but, instead, the Minister has removed the most controversial features of this and accepted Amendment 110A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile—and the name of the Minister himself is also on that amendment.

I also mention the contacts from the German embassy in relation to the same points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Balfe, at an earlier stage of Report: the concerns of political foundations such as the centre-left Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the centre-right Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and whether they would have a duty to register. If the Minister could repeat what he said earlier, I hope that the minds of the representatives of those organisations will be put at rest.

I welcome what has been said. I hope that this is indeed a workable scheme. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who described a “radical overhaul”, which it is not usual to get on such an important Bill as this. I think that everybody accepts that this is a very important Bill and I hope that it will emerge from your Lordships’ House a better Bill than when it arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I can speak briefly because my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have spoken forcefully on this matter. The amendments to remove Clauses 89 and 90 are in my name and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I believe it is a matter of principle—a very flawed principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—to bar anybody with a terrorism offence, however minor, from being granted civil legal aid.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, admitted in Committee that this proposal was “symbolic”— I think he said it more than once. In other words, it is gesture politics. The hope must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, just said, to paint those of us opposing it as somehow soft on terrorism, but I put it to the Government that they could be regarded as soft on murder, rape and sexual offences. They are apparently content that major offenders against women, of the likes of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, variously guilty of abduction, rape and murder, could one day be eligible for civil legal aid, but not someone who is a minor offender under terrorism laws. If they try to throw at us in the Daily Mail that we are soft on terrorists, the Government ought to be prepared for a counter charge that they are soft on murderers and rapists. Given the huge public concern in recent weeks, months and years about the volume and the type of offences against women, I do not think that the Government are going to come out of this well.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, these clauses restrict access to civil legal aid for convicted terrorists, although there are exemptions to this, such as when the convicted terrorist is under 18. I welcome government Amendments 184 and 186, where the Minister has made a further concession regarding people who have been victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse.

While we support the principle that terrorists should not receive legal aid, we are concerned that application of these clauses could permanently impact those with minor offences such as vandalism. We have therefore tabled Amendment 188A in my name to create a practical mechanism to address these concerns. This would establish a statutory review of the impact on those who receive non-custodial sentences. We will not support Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which would allow terrorists to receive legal aid if their applications relate to a non-terrorism offence. We believe that these most serious offenders who commit attacks on the UK should not receive support, regardless of the nature of their later civil proceedings.

There is a point of principle here, which is that terrorism is a uniquely targeted offence against the British state, and we think that that needs to be recognised. However, there are the points of the low-level offences, which I brought to the attention of the Committee, and there is also the point that was acknowledged by the Minister about people who are victims of domestic abuse. So, there are principles here, but there is a clash of principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree that it demands justification, which is that when terrorists carry out their activities, they are attacking in a random way the state itself. The attacks against women to which the noble Baroness referred are of course totally reprehensible, but do not attack the state in any way. They attack women for what they are and those offences are, of course, taken extremely seriously.

I accept that the Government’s amendments regarding civil legal aid on these offences send a message. I and the Labour Party accept and support that point. However, that needs to be ameliorated at the lower level and reviewed. That is why I will be testing the opinion of the House when we reach Amendment 188A.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

That does not clear a path in the Bill at all. I am rather shocked by Clause 89. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he accepts the position regarding someone who was convicted of terrorism some years before and brings a civil claim, particularly, for instance, for eviction from housing. Is he or she entitled to a lawyer in order to be able to come before the court and put his or her case? If so, there is an absence of fairness if that person cannot afford the lawyer that he or she would need, and would have to represent himself or herself. That seems to be contrary to access to justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we in the Opposition are accepting the principle that terrorism is uniquely terrible and needs to be dealt with in that way. However, my amendment calls for a review of the impact of this on certain lower-level cases.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord is being patient, but what is there to review? Why has he not put down an amendment that simply excludes from this objectionable clause those who are convicted only in circumstances that lead to a non-custodial sentence? That surely is the logic of what he is saying. Why do we need a review?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

We need a review because we do not know what the impact is unless we have looked at the data. It seems to be as simple as that.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful and the noble Lord is being patient on these points. He referred to only the most serious cases and said that there was a separate issue with regard to cases that are less serious. In Committee, he used as an example a personal one: someone being convicted of the offence of graffiti. That woman—if indeed it was a woman—would no longer be able to get any legal aid support if she had been a victim of human trafficking or sexual attack. That cannot be right. Does the noble Lord agree that that is what he is supporting today?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, the amendment is calling for a review to look at the practical impact of the proposed legislation. We have yet to hear from the Minister on whether the Government accept that a review is necessary.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is Report and not an opportunity to further debate the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

188A: Clause 89, page 61, line 33, at end insert—
“(10A) Within 60 days of this section coming into force, a Minister of the Crown must publish a review in to the impact of this section on offenders who have been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that a Minister must review the impact of restrictions on legal aid on those who receive non-custodial sentences.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

National Security Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s amendments. We recognise that they have come a long way since Committee. The amendments in this group seek to address the unintended consequences of offences for journalists and NGOs. Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill that the legitimate activities of journalists, such as the possession of leaked information, could lead to their prosecution. The main focus of today’s debate is Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Black. It aims to give a specific offence, whereas our Amendment 79B calls for an assessment of the impact of this group.

Given the significant concessions made by the Government, I will not divide the House on Amendment 79B and we will abstain on Amendments 18 and 72 if they are moved to a vote. However, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, when she said that she would listen to the Minister, deliberate and see what will be done. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will press Amendment 18 to a vote even if the noble Lord, Lord Black, chooses not to. Either way, the Labour Party will abstain on those votes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their very warm words. The strength of opinion highlights how important journalistic freedom is, and the Government take it extremely seriously. Whistleblowing will be dealt with in the next group, so if the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, allows, I will not deal with it in my response.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Black for his amendment and for his general comments in support of this Bill. As I have said, we have listened to concerns raised by the media sector and noble Lords. The Government’s amendments are a direct response to them. I will endeavour to provide the clarity that my noble friend Lady Stowell asked for.

On my noble friend Lord Black’s amendment, the Government cannot accept a defence linked to the definition of a recognised news publisher. Rather than taking activity out of scope, the defence would act as a way for foreign powers, particularly those seeking to cause the UK harm, to avoid prosecution under this clause and engage in harmful espionage activity. If a journalist is deliberately colluding with a foreign intelligence service in relation to their UK-related activities, such as by revealing intelligence capabilities that could be exploited by that intelligence service, it is absolutely right that they should face criminal sanction.

I acknowledge that the amendment seeks to provide a targeted protection for journalists by referencing “a recognised news publisher”. The Government have serious concerns that any individuals working under the cover of journalism in foreign media organisations operating in the UK would be able to abuse this provision. Even if hostile state actors did not currently use journalistic cover to engage in espionage, having a defence such as this would almost certainly encourage them to do so. This defence would apply even if the conduct in question was probably against the public interest. This is simply not acceptable; it would give foreign states a back door to commit espionage. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept this amendment and I ask my noble friend not to move it.

However, I want to reassure the media sector that publication of an article that was critical of the UK Government, and which might incidentally be capable of assisting a foreign intelligence service, would not fall within the scope of this offence; nor would the handling of materials in the course of genuine journalistic activities, nor likely the other offences in this Bill. For an offence to be committed under Clause 3, an individual would need to engage in conduct intending

“to materially assist a foreign intelligence service”,

or know, or should have known given the information they had at the time, that it was likely that such conduct would do so.

The Government may profoundly disagree with the conclusions of some journalists, but we will not hide behind the criminal law to suppress genuine competing views and it is almost inconceivable that genuine journalism will be caught within the threshold for criminal activity. My noble friend raised some specific examples and there are many—for example, those relating Snatch Land Rovers a few years ago—but the Government do not consider that the publication of an article that was critical of the UK Government, and which incidentally might be capable of assisting a foreign intelligence service, would fall within the scope of this offence. I think it is worth repeating that.

Many of the examples that have been provided in various articles are stories which relate to terrorism. No journalist has been prosecuted for an offence under terrorism legislation. Even where examples are relevant to state threats activity, no journalist has been prosecuted for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. This Bill will be no different and the Government do not accept the view that it criminalises the activity described in the media.

The test of material assistance is key. To be “material”, the assistance to the foreign intelligence service must be important, considerable or in a significant way. As with all criminal offences, it is the specific circumstances of the case that will be important and will be a matter for the prosecuting authorities, but we would expect prosecutions to involve those with known links to foreign intelligence services, including evidence of a relationship, tasking or payment. Absent these links, the Government struggle to envisage even the most provocative piece of journalism meeting the threshold for the offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, noted the Statement made last week on Iran International, and many noble Lords will have read it; it highlighted the potentially lethal operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps taking place in the UK. Far from criminalising the important work of journalists, this offence is intended to protect Iran International, and others who live and work here, from such direct attacks on our people and values.

I turn to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regards to security or defence interests under Clauses 1, 3, 4, 8, 12 and 14. These amendments seek to narrow the definition of “interests of the UK” to ensure a focus on the protection of national security and defence interests, alongside economic security interests. Similar amendments were tabled in Committee, so I will reiterate the concerns the Government continue to have with these changes, as they remain relevant. Narrowing the interest element to cover only security or defence interests significantly moves away from the “safety or interests of the UK” test that already exists and is understood within current espionage legislation. I am afraid these amendments move away from the status quo by creating a test with an unduly narrow focus on national security. While the noble Lord importantly made specific reference to interests pertaining to the UK in its economic security, these amendments continue to not include other critical UK interests relating to public health or, for example, the preservation of our democracy.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the case of Chandler v DPP, as did his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. “Safety or interests of the UK” has been considered by the courts to mean the objects of state policy, determined by the Crown, on the advice of Ministers. We expect this interpretation to carry forward to the new legislation and there are safeguards in place to prevent the Government using this legislation inappropriately—for example, by deciding that somebody is acting against government policy but where there is no national security impact.

Each offence under this legislation includes a test that must be met in order for the offences to be committed. For example, for a person to commit a Clause 1 offence, they must obtain or disclose information that is protected for a purpose

“that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”

and the activity must be conducted for, on behalf of or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. This limits the type of conduct capable of being caught under this offence, and in particular the foreign power condition ensures that there is a state link. Designing the offence in this way clearly focuses the offence on harmful state threats activity.

I now turn to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The most concerning consequence of this amendment is that where a state threats actor, acting under a proxy, has been engaged in harmful activity, which was an offence under the Bill, they would not commit an offence even if it could be shown that they were receiving specific funding in relation to that activity from a foreign power. The House will note the references to “state threats”, “foreign powers” and “national security”. Much as the amorous adventures of Matt Hancock may be of interest, clearly none of those falls in the scope of this offence.

It is no secret that those with hostile intent try to hide their activities through genuine means, and through this amendment there is a real risk that they could operate through proxies in order to make it more difficult to be prosecuted. It is therefore clear to see that narrowing the scope of the foreign power condition will have a damaging impact across the Bill. The Government considers this amendment would create unnecessary loopholes for state actors to exploit.

I would like to remind the House that the Government amended Clause 31(2)(c) in the other place to put it beyond doubt that there needs to be a clear link between the conduct and any assistance or funding from a foreign power for the condition to be met. It is the Government’s view that this puts the focus on the foreign power, ensuring that financial or other assistance from the foreign power is caught only when it is provided to enable the person to carry out the conduct, not when it is just any financial or other assistance.

I would also like to make it clear that Clause 31(2)(d), which concerns activity carried out in collaboration with, or with the agreement of, a foreign power, requires the foreign power to be actively involved in that collaboration or agreement; it does not cover cases where a person’s activities align with state objectives. The Government therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press her amendment.

To conclude, as all speakers have noted, the Government have moved a very long way in ensuring that journalistic freedoms are not being unduly encroached in this Bill, so I hope noble Lords will accept our amendments and withdraw or not press theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

If I am being invited to comment on whether I would support a different amendment, I say that might well be the case. However, I do not support the amendment that is before us.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, concerns have been raised that legitimate acts in the public interest could lead to prosecution under the Bill. The Government have insisted that a public interest defence could legalise instances of espionage or sabotage. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has said that he will press his amendment to establish a public interest defence. While we in the Labour Party support this in principle, we believe that the amendment is too broad and that it could in effect legalise espionage. We believe that there need to be appropriate safeguards built into any future legislation.

Further to this, we believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, fails to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations; that was a point made by my noble friend Lord West. I will instead press Amendment 18A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, to a vote; that is for a consultation on the introduction of a public interest offence, which we believe can establish some mechanism for addressing the concerns of the House. We believe that the amendment is a tighter and more focused approach than the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. To address wider concerns on whistleblowing, we have also tabled Amendment 79A to establish an independent statutory commissioner, although we will not press it to a vote in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

18A: Clause 3, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“(9A) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must consult, and publish a report of that consultation, on proposals for a public interest defence in relation to an offence under subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the government to formally consult on the introduction of a public interest defence for offences committed under Clause 3(2).

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to ask the Minister a question. I support what has been said by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Marks, but is Clause 32(1)(e) not possibly a case of government overreach? When it is listed that a political party involved in a Government of a friendly power should be included in the Bill in this way, does it imply that every member of that political party would be covered by this provision? Are we talking about the headquarters of a political party or the membership? That would involve so many people, I wonder whether the Government really mean to do that and, if so, whether they realise what an incredible extension and overreach that might represent.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a more wide-ranging debate than I was anticipating. The definition of a foreign power is an important issue. It was covered by the Minister in Committee, and I look forward to him expanding on what he said and particularly to address the points made by my noble friend Lady Hayter in her Amendment 74. I think I will leave it there because we have other business to deal with, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I will do my best to clarify all the points and answer all the questions that have been raised. First, I turn to government Amendment 76, which addresses concerns raised in Committee and in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the drafting of the third limb of the foreign power threat activity provision. This provision is a key part of the Bill which ensures that police have the powers they need in supporting investigations into state threats offences. The concerns raised were that support or assistance unrelated to the harmful conduct covered by foreign power threat activity under Clause 33(3) risked being caught under Clause 33(1)(c). That is not the Government’s intention, and this amendment puts it beyond doubt that the support or assistance must be in relation to the conduct covered by Clause 33(1)(a) rather than unrelated activity. I hope that addresses the concerns helpfully put forward by noble Lords in Committee and that this amendment is welcomed.

This group also includes Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and it relates to the meaning of a “foreign power”. The amendment seeks to remove

“a political party which is a governing political party of a foreign government”

from the definition. I would very much like to thank the noble Baroness for the constructive engagement we have had on this issue. I know her principal concern is with the effect of this clause on the foreign influence registration scheme, which of course we will be debating next week.

The foreign power condition applies right across the Bill and is crucial in order that the new offences in it, such as espionage, theft of trade secrets and sabotage, work effectively. Removing it here would remove it from those other offences too. The Government’s position, as the noble Baroness is aware, is that the inclusion of governing political parties addresses situations where there is a dominant political party, or parties, within a country, to such extent that it may be difficult to disentangle whether harmful activities have been carried out on the direction of the ruling party or the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

80: Leave out Clause 56 and insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5(1) The operation of Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.(2) The operation of Part 4 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (review of terrorism legislation).(3) The operation of Parts 1, 2 and 5 must be reviewed by either—(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of that Act, or(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State. (4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and(b) each subsequent 12-month period.(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 has effect as if the references to “expenses” and “allowances” in that subsection included “expenses” and “allowances” in connection with the discharge by the person or people of functions under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the regular review of the operation of Parts 1, 4, and 5 of the Act as well as of Part 2.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 80

“would provide for the regular review of the operation of Parts 1, 4, and 5 of the Act as well as of Part 2.”

Also in this group are government Amendments 81, 85 and 86. Of course, we welcome that the Government have engaged on the issue of oversight and introduced significant concessions. However, the purpose of Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is to go further. On that basis, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I know that this is Report and we do not have to and fro, but I was making the point that it was an omission in the Government’s amendment. It is utterly open-ended as to whether the Secretary of State will lay the report from the independent reviewer before Parliament. I was seeking clarification from the Minister that that would not be the case.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it was me who moved Amendment 80, which is the first amendment in this group. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Anderson, for supporting it. Regarding Part 5, which is covered by my amendment, the Minister described it as supplementary. Well, it may be supplementary, but it is very consequential, because it provides that the Government can make any consequential provision that is a result of this Act, and that consequential amendment can apply both within and outside the UK. It is very significant, even though the Minister may describe it as supplementary.

For that reason, and to provide a more comprehensive view of the Act, as it will be in due course, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 80.

Public Order Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we wholeheartedly support all the amendments in this group. Noble Lords often talk about the tremendous work the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has done on this Bill, although I realise they have not said it in those terms.

It may come as a surprise to Members of this House that I consider myself to be a Christian. I rather overdid it: I was baptised as an infant; then I became a Baptist and was baptised by total immersion; and then I went to Oxford and was confirmed in the Church of England. It was belt and braces as far as I am concerned. This legislation is not anti-Christian and, in respect of people who privately pray, my understanding is that prayer works very effectively outside of a 150-metre radius of an abortion clinic.

I have to apologise to the House: I should have been on my guard on Report. I refer to the debate on 7 February, when the Minister talked about the Government having tabled amendments

“which seek to allay some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships.”

I think the Minister knows what is coming. He went on to say that the second amendment, Amendment 58,

“reduces the relevant period of past conduct which is considered for SDPOs from within five years to within three years … It is the Government’s view that these amendments represent a substantive offer and address the main criticisms of SDPOs”.—[Official Report, 7/2/23; cols. 1147-48.]

Regrettably, when it came to Amendment 58, the Minister “not moved” his own amendment. I was not quick enough to intervene to rescue it, so that amendment is lost. It was not part of an amended part of the Bill, so it cannot be amended here at Third Reading, and it cannot be amended in the Commons either. As I said, I apologise for not being quick enough to spot that mistake. Having said that, we support all the amendments before the House today.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we too support all the amendments today. I open by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for all her work on this matter; I know that she has worked tirelessly between both Houses and both sides of this House. I am glad that we have reached this point and, to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: plenty of Christians support the amendments and there are a number I know who would take exception to people describing them as somehow not as good Christians as those who wish to protest by praying within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. It is perfectly clear that you can pray wherever you like, but outside 150 metres of an abortion clinic.

I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who talked about the strength of the votes at earlier stages of the Bill. He highlighted stop and search and SDPOs, and the strength of support from across the Cross Benches, including from many very senior former judges. I hope that when the Minister wraps up, at this stage or the next, he says something or gives us some hint about how far the Government will go in recognising the concerns that this House has expressed.

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

My Lords, subsequent to Report and ahead of today’s Third Reading, the Government have brought a number of clarificatory technical amendments.

First, during the debate on Report on 7 February, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked for clarification, as he has referred to, that a second or subsequent serious disruption prevention order made in respect of the same person could not be founded on trigger events that had already been taken into account for the purposes of a previous order. I confirmed that that was indeed the Government’s intention. In this spirit, the Government have today brought an amendment clarifying that position within the legislation. I hope noble Lords are satisfied with that legal clarity and I thank the noble Lord for his remarks.

Finally, on Report, your Lordships voted to remove from the Bill Clause 11 on suspicionless stop and search, and Clause 20 on serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction. As a result, the Government have brought tidying amendments that are consequential to those amendments. I will not speculate further on what may happen later.

Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations and the scheme in such detail. I am afraid I have some questions—even though I know he takes the view that debates are opportunities for debate rather than asking questions.

I appreciate and understand that the scheme is to align with the electronic travel authorisation system. The regulations and therefore the scheme come into effect when the instrument is made, as I understand it. I spoke to the Public Bill Office about this this morning, because I wanted to be clear about it. The Minister has just said that when the new scheme comes into effect, the 2021 scheme will be revoked. That seems to suggest that there has to be some very careful timing. As the regulations are not replacing earlier regulations, if there is a problem under the earlier scheme, the new regulations can cope with it smoothly. That is how the PBO explained it. Is that actually the case? Does the timing have to align with the EU’s new border arrangements? Most particularly, when will the ETA come into effect? I know we still await details of it: how it will be implemented, its cost and how its application will be approved. There is obviously a lot of concern about practical aspects for both carriers and travellers.

Paragraph 14(d) of the scheme provides that authority to carry may be refused for individuals

“in relation to whom the Secretary of State is in the process of making a decision that the individual be made subject of an exclusion order”.

In other words, it can bite before an order is made. Do I have that right? If so, can that be right? The Secretary of State surely needs to make an order; it is not automatic.

It is similar for individuals who—the Minister has used this terminology already—

“would be refused entry clearance or a visa”

under the new rules and for individuals who

“would be refused an ETA”,

entry clearance or a visa under the rules. That is even further away from the decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee—because I assume that quite a lot of this replicates the earlier schemes, so they are not just hypotheticals—how this is proper. Immigration Rules are subject to change without parliamentary involvement. What right of appeal is there, particularly if there is a refusal before the Secretary of State has reached a decision? It does not feel comfortable to me.

We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that an ETA may be cancelled when that is in the public interest, and that, under the earlier schemes, authority has been refused in respect of—it has now gone up to—11,200 individuals. That is a lot of individuals, each one of whom, and their family in many cases, is no less affected. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, as a percentage of all arrivals it is quite small—but it is a lot of individual people. Does the Minister know how many of the 11,200 were UK residents? How will the Government ensure that certain nationalities or ethnicities will not be disproportionately affected by the scheme? The Minister also mentioned revocation of leave. If or when that happens, will the individual be notified? Will he be aware of that revocation?

There has been praise for the bespoke schemes for Ukrainians fleeing the war. How will the travel authorisation schemes operate to ensure that the UK’s response to other humanitarian crises is not hindered? Sadly, there are many other conflict areas and an awful lot of people affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

I am sure the Minister is not thrown by having a number of questions raised without notice; I looked at this only over the weekend. The questions I raise may sound like matters of detail, but I think that in fact they are all matters of principle.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The SI replaces the 2021 no-fly scheme that prevents terrorists, serious criminals and others travelling into the UK via aircraft, ships or trains. The scheme was introduced in 2012 and was updated by statutory instrument in 2015 and 2021.

The 2023 scheme extends the range of people who carriers can be refused authority to carry to those refused an ETA or those travelling without a valid document or travelling on the document of another person. Penalties of up to £50,000 were put in place on carriers that breached the terms of the scheme. The maximum penalty has not increased since the original scheme in 2015. Is there any scope for increasing this maximum, along the lines of inflation or something like that? This question was asked in 2021, but I am not sure that my noble friend who asked it got a reply.

The ETA scheme has not been introduced, nor have details been released on how it would work, who would need to apply for it, how much it would cost or on what grounds it would be revoked. As we have heard, the Government have stated that it will be in place by the end of 2024. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the case for when it will be introduced?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of pertinent questions about the alignment of the ETA with EU regulations and how it will work with the wider carrier network, if I can put it like that.

In response to questions raised in the Commons this month, the Minister stated that 23 penalties have been imposed over the seven years of the scheme and that the number of people prevented from travelling has stayed consistent over this time. The figures given were that 1,702 people were prevented from boarding in 2016-17 and 1,700 in 2022-23. In the 2021 Lords debate, the Minister did not respond to questions about whether some carriers had been repeat offenders. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on whether particular carriers are repeat offenders when fines are given to them.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Updated guidance will be provided to industry”,


but no detail has been provided on when that will take place. Can the Minister tell us when that updated guidance may be available?

Finally, there is the status of transit passengers. How are they brought into the scope of these regulations and will they be affected? Having said that, we support the statutory instrument.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I think I have answers to them all, and I will take them in turn.

I turn first to matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who asked when the 2023 scheme will come into effect. Regulation 2 of the draft instrument provides that:

“The Authority to Carry Scheme … comes into force on the day on which these Regulations come into force.”


That is mirrored in paragraph 28 of the scheme, which observes that it will come into force on the day the authority to carry scheme regulations come into force. Obviously, that is the date on which the new scheme will be in force. I can put the noble Baroness’s mind at rest. If she were to compare the 2021 scheme and the 2023 scheme, a lot of the text is the same. The changes introduced by the new scheme are simply to effect the changes that I outlined in my earlier remarks. There will not be any gap that will affect the implementation of the scheme or proceedings brought under the earlier scheme, because they will then simply be under the new scheme that is in force.

The noble Baroness asked whether the scheme has to align with broader issues. I hope I have already addressed that; it is making only minor changes, so it should align and there should not be any difficulties. The provisions about ETAs are there in readiness for the implementation of ETAs along the lines of the timetable suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.