Former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration: Reports

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord has made that point before. Of course, we are unable to detain anybody, so when he characterises them as being lost, they have left as much as anything else. When they go missing from hotels, a multiagency missing persons protocol is mobilised, alongside the police and local authorities, to establish their whereabouts and ensure they are safe. Many of those who go missing are subsequently traced and located. The Home Office continues to review and improve practices around preventing children going missing, including work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is publishing, and has published, guidance on missing migrant children. I say again: the vast majority of these were aged 16 and 17. Only 18 are still aged under 18.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Government’s Rwanda Bill will now contain measures that will allow unaccompanied children to be relocated to Rwanda, and the Government have published a country note for Rwanda stating that it is a safe country. Normally, country notes are reviewed by the independent commissioner, but David Neal’s office confirmed to me on 17 January that the Government had not yet asked for an independent review of their country note statement that Rwanda is a safe country. Now that there is no independent reviewer, how will Parliament know that that statement has been reviewed by an independent commissioner?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

To start with, the noble Lord is incorrect in saying that unaccompanied children will be sent to Rwanda; as he is well aware, that is prohibited under Article 3 of the treaty. On the review, the ICIBI started on the country-of-origin information but that has not yet been sent to the Home Secretary. That is one of the ongoing pieces of ICIBI work that cannot be finalised until a new or interim ICIBI has been appointed, and I cannot comment on that process yet.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord German and Lord Thomas told us that we have a Bill in front of us, which the Government are asking us to support, which compels decision-makers to treat as fact things that have already been found to be false and to bar courts and tribunals from considering any evidence or arguments to the contrary. I have listened carefully to every contribution in this debate, and they have not been contradicted.

In addition, these Benches cannot support a Bill which states in Clause 1 that both Houses of Parliament consider a country to be safe when, actually, one House of Parliament last week conclusively stated we cannot yet make that judgment and refused to do so. It is not only that we are asked to consider alternative facts for Rwanda; we are now being asked to legislate a false record of our own votes. But we are not alone in saying that we cannot make that judgment about Rwanda: so did the Supreme Court; as we heard, so did the Home Office officials who, since the Government said that Rwanda should only be considered a safe country, have themselves determined that Rwanda is unsafe for four of its nationals to whom we have given asylum, while the Home Office was drafting this Bill to determine Rwanda safe. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is indeed the case.

The Government have said that the treaty addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns but are now asking us to bar the Supreme Court from judging whether it does. These Benches reject that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said at the start that the Supreme Court used out-of-date information when it came to its judgment, but we know, and he knows, that the Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the UNHCR, which just this month concluded again that the UK-Rwanda arrangements are

“incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention”.

The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law told us that, fundamentally,

“Safety is a factual question which cannot be conclusively determined in advance, for all cases, by the legislature. Enacting a conclusive deeming of Rwanda as a safe country is a legislative usurpation of the judicial function”.


We agree.

Some in this debate, such as the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Hannan, have said that they have to support the Bill because, alas, Opposition parties are not in power. There is a ready solution to their quandary, of course.

An alternative argument from the Government Benches came from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who said that the Bill is “the only thing to do”. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll also said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there”. I say with great respect to my friend Annabel—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—that we are not going to follow her on that road.

Some noble Lords raised the constitutional issue of our voting today, or

“defying the will of the people”,

as the Prime Minister said. Let us deal with the “will of the people” thing first. This is where the Prime Minister has determined that any piece of his legislation emanating from the Government, a government Bill, is “the will of the people” and therefore must be passed. He said it to us about this one, and we have had many Ministers and advisers from the Commons at the Bar just to make sure that we were aware of it. However, there is a wee flaw in this argument as, according to the Hansard Society, in the last Session of Parliament the Government themselves defied the will of the people by withdrawing a whopping 10% of their own legislative programme, or six Bills, four of which had actually been in the 2022 Queen’s Speech. So, if the Government themselves are defiant of the will of the people to such an extent, we are being modest in suggesting that just this one should be withdrawn.

The second argument concerns voting on Second Reading. This is unusual, of course, as my noble friend Lord German said, but it is not unheard of. In 2000, the Criminal Justice Bill was rejected at Second Reading in this House. On that occasion, my noble friends joined the Conservatives and some Cross-Bench Peers in voting the Bill down at Second Reading in this House. Then, as my noble friend indicated, in 2011 on the Health and Social Care Bill, Labour voted against a Bill that had just passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. I respect him greatly—I am not sure whether he is in his place—but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, intervened on my noble friend to complain about that process, forgetting that he voted in that Division, as did five of his colleagues on the Labour Benches who have spoken this evening. All three parties and many on the Cross Benches—including 20 on that Bill, I say to my friend the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—have sincerely made a decision to vote on Second Reading, so that really is not an issue for this evening.

Others have referred to the Salisbury/Addison convention. I am not an expert like the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, but even if the Bill got close to being anything like what was in the 2019 Government manifesto, these Benches have never adhered to that convention. Since the Bill was not in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, it might be worth reminding ourselves briefly, regarding immigration, what was. Page 20 had an

“Australian-style points-based immigration system”,

with the commitment that

“There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down”.


The result? The ONS estimates that net migration to the UK was 745,000 in 2022, up from 184,000 in 2019, with overall numbers at a record high. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, was in Cabinet then, and I and others feel his pain and regret for failure—we felt that in his contribution, but he admitted it, so that is to be welcomed. Also on page 20 was the brightest-and-best visa. Remember that? That was when the UK was going to be catnip for the world’s global talent through the global talent visa. The result? Three applications in two years.

Page 21 is where it gets very worrying:

“We are committed to the Windrush compensation scheme”.


It has taken my noble friend Lady Benjamin and others in this House to be tireless campaigners on this, given the delays and inaction from the Government. The tragic result has been that, four years on, over 50 people have died before receiving recompense.

The overall record on the wider management of immigration is not much better. Actually, it is worse. According to Home Office figures, in 2013 the then Government returned 21,000 migrants voluntarily, but this fell to 4,000 in 2021. For those who had no right to be in the UK, the Government in 2012 returned 15,000 people, but in 2021 that had shrunk to 2,700.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, “We need this Bill because we cannot wait”. Well, on these Benches we have been impatient for action on this for years, and the Government have not acted.

It was not just us complaining: the independent review by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in 2019 warned of consequences of poor data sharing and low morale among Home Office staff. The warnings were unheeded. I make a personal plea this evening: if we heard a contribution this evening with a warning we should heed, it was that from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is a moral and intellectual guardian of our constitution.

But the Government now seek to present the whole issue as being just for those seeking asylum. We know that there is a much lower share of failed asylum seekers as part of returnees: 8% in 2021, compared with 2010, when it was 23%. So we know that those arriving here, no matter how they arrive, have a higher cause, and the Government have considered that cause and given refuge to them—not under 1951 rules but under 2020 rules.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, “The Government have been blocked all along from having this solution”. The Government have had every single migration measure that they wanted passed. It is that side’s issue, not ours.

The Home Office itself shows us that those seeking refuge are a smaller part of the problem than over a decade ago, but we know that returns are a much bigger problem because of the Government’s own mismanagement. Now, £290 million was spent, with a further £78 million on a notice for tender, last autumn—for nothing, as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said.

We now have a policy that is meant to be a deterrent, but the noble Lord, Lord Green, was right: how successful will it be if a Government issues a press release in the morning saying that their migration policies are a deterrent but then admit in the afternoon that, without a face-to-face interview, they gave 12,000 refugees right to remain, and potentially right to work, for five years? How that will that be successful?

A perfectly legal and acceptable returns agreement with Albania is working, but the Government have failed to agree other legal return and resettlement agreements. These are the very agreements that the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, said in the Illegal Migration Bill proceedings would be necessary, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said would be desirable. But the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, told me they were not a silver bullet, and we have not seen any progress since.

We are not alone in highlighting the issues. The National Audit Office report on immigration enforcement ended with these words:

“The Department’s success in meeting its mission to prevent illegal immigration through greater compliance with immigration laws is unclear”.


On the Bill,

“the government’s position depends on the treaty to sufficiently conclude there is no risk of Rwanda deviating from its terms”,

but the Supreme Court found that

“obligations which Rwanda has previously breached”

were already contained in its agreements and “in binding international law”. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said, we do not then set aside the ability to question this in any other treaty that we have signed, including a trade treaty, as we said. Not only that, but we have not made any concerns unchallengeable.

Parliament is being asked to judge Rwanda safe in primary legislation in perpetuity, but the Government’s own admission is that it will be in that situation only when the treaty is fully operational. But the Minister opening this debate was not able to answer the simplest question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: when will it be operational? The Minister told us that we must have “no doubt Rwanda is to be a safe country”—but he had plenty of doubt in answering when.

So how will we in Parliament know? We have been told time and time again that treaty making and treaty keeping are prerogative powers, not parliamentary ones. Now, apparently, those are our powers. Given that a key part of the Supreme Court’s ruling was that Rwanda had agreements already in place but did not adhere to them, how will we know?

The Government say it will be through a monitoring committee, but the committee in Article 15 of the treaty has no powers of enforcement: it can simply report to the Joint Committee, which has only advisory powers itself.

Before I close, I will pick up the point about trafficking made by my noble friend Lady Northover and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. In 2022, 2,658 people who arrived via irregular routes were successfully referred through the national referral mechanism for report. However, the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 2023 report on Rwanda, which the Home Office cites as a gold standard and operates on the basis of, said that the Government of Rwanda

“did not meet the minimum standards in several key areas. The government continued to lack specialized SOPs to adequately screen for trafficking among vulnerable populations and did not refer any victims to services. The government provided support to and coordinated with the March 23 Movement … armed group, which forcibly recruited and used children … Scarce resources, lack of training, limited capacity, and conflation of human trafficking with other crimes hindered law enforcement efforts”.

So we are now expected to send a woman trafficked by a British gang, who arrived undocumented and cannot even claim that she has been trafficked here in the UK, to another country which will somehow operate a system which the TIP report has said does not even meet minimum standards.

Before I close, I will pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the UK’s characterisation of Rwanda and how we are seeing our relationship through the lens of vilification and ignoring development partnership. Well, it is the Government who say that being sent to Rwanda is a deterrent, not the Opposition. Even before the MoU was agreed, I raised my alarm in this Chamber that the Government had slashed development partnership support from £85 million in 2018 to less than £16 million. Now the financial partnership relationship with the Government of Rwanda is almost exclusively around migration. This relationship with Rwanda is being seen through the Government’s lens, not ours, and I regret that.

I will close by quoting Lord Williams of Mostyn, who opened a debate in 2000 when the House decided to defeat a Government at Second Reading:

“I recognise that most of those who will speak tonight are my personal and professional friends and that they will feel unable to support the Bill … I recognise that their motives are entirely honourable. It is not their motives I question but their conclusions”.—[Official Report, 28/9/2000; col. 961.]


Equally, I do not question any noble Lord’s motives for voting this evening, but these Benches have concluded, for all the reasons that my noble friends and colleagues have given, that this Bill should go no further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, each individual case is different. I do not know the particular circumstances.

It is important to stress that people from many different nationalities apply for asylum in the UK. This includes nationals from some of our closest European neighbours and other safe countries around the world. That is why there are a small number of cases where we have granted asylum to individuals from countries that we would otherwise consider safe. This is a reflection of our system working. An individual claim is not a reflection of the country as a whole. This process also reflects the safeguards which the Bill provides to individuals in Clause 4, which I have just read out. Each case will be considered on its individual merits by caseworkers who receive extensive training. All available evidence is carefully and sensitively considered in the light of published country information, but I cannot comment on the specifics of individual cases.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked what support will be available for those who are particularly vulnerable. Rwandan officials will have due regard to the psychological and physical signs of vulnerability of all relocated persons at any stage of the application and integration process. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers in Rwanda who have received the relevant training and are equipped to handle competently safeguarding referrals. Interpreters will be available as required to ensure that relocated individuals can make their needs known. All interviews will be conducted with sensitivity for the individual’s well-being.

The Government of Rwanda have processes in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health, gender-based violence and addiction. All relocated individuals will receive appropriate protection and assistance according to their needs, including referral to specialist services, as appropriate, to protect their welfare.

Article 13 of the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided about a relocated individual relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of their being a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

How will they know? The Illegal Migration Act prevents someone who may well have been trafficked from even starting the process of claiming that they have been trafficked here, so how will the Rwandans know? We are not collecting that information.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have just said, the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided about a relocated individual by the United Kingdom.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful, but that is prohibited in the Illegal Migration Act.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord on that very specific point.

These are also detailed in the standard operating procedures as part of the evidence pack released on 11 January in support of the Bill. Furthermore, the UK is providing additional expertise to support the development of Rwanda’s capacity to safeguard vulnerable persons.

The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, asked about the treatment of LGBT persons, if sent to Rwanda. Rwandan legal protection for LGBT rights is generally considered more progressive than that of neighbouring countries. The constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law or policy. As set out in paragraph 36 of the Government’s published policy statement, the constitution of Rwanda prohibits, at article 16, discrimination of any kind based on, among other things, ethnic origin, family or ancestry, clan, skin colour or race, sex, region, economic categories, religion or faith, opinion, fortune, cultural differences, language, economic status, and physical or mental disability.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about unaccompanied children deemed to be adults being relocated to Rwanda. As the treaty sets out in Article 3(4), we will not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under 18 to Rwanda. Any unaccompanied individual who, subsequent to relocation, is deemed by a court or tribunal in the UK to either be under 18 or to be treated temporarily as being under 18, shall be returned to the UK.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Baroness. I am grateful for the committee’s work, especially since the Commons is not debating the treaty. These Benches agree with the conclusions of the unanimous cross-party report and will support the Motions. I am also grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply and fulsome response to a letter that I wrote to the Foreign Secretary in December.

Some outside the House may say that, over the coming weeks, we will be approaching our work in a constitutionally unusual way. The Government are insistent that we are constituted in the way that we are with the powers that we possess, but that we should not use them—in some form of appeal to the law to make us good at scrutiny, but not yet. We will do our job and we will scrutinise properly, and on the treaty too.

The treaty builds on the MoU, in certain areas with clarity, I accept, but in most other areas with assertion and optimism. Together with the Bill, the Government respond to the Supreme Court ruling not by addressing its substantive points but by setting them aside and presenting Parliament with alternative facts.

These Benches oppose the treaty and the Bill, which place the United Kingdom at material risk of breaching our international law commitments and undermining the rule of law by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. They will lead to further substantial costs to the taxpayer, fail to provide safe and legal routes for refugees, and fail to include measures to tackle people-smuggling gangs.

The House will recall that, on 13 April 2022, at the start of all this, the Home Office Permanent Secretary said that there was insufficient evidence to back up the Government’s assertion that the agreement with Rwanda would provide value for money, so he sought and received a ministerial direction. Some £120 million had been spent. It is utterly unacceptable that, after repeated questions on funding from me and others in this Chamber, in 2022 and 2023, only in December last year was it disclosed that a further £120 million was committed at that time—secretly by Ministers, with no disclosure.

When I visited the reception centre in Kigali in the summer of 2022, I was told that this was an annualised rolling contract, renewable in March each year. So can the Minister confirm that there will be another £120 million committed for next year, over and above the £50 million the Home Office has indicated for the coming year—and will this also be kept secret? Is this being scored against official development assistance? Why is it not being reported on a project basis in a transparent way?

Incredibly, the Home Office now says that part of the £290 million is a credit line to the Rwanda Government—not for the purpose of the treaty, but a credit line. For what, precisely, and to whom? Who are the beneficiaries?

I can inform the House today that, on top of the £290 million, the Government quietly issued a tender last March for a £78 million contract for:

“Collection, transportation, and escorting individuals overseas through an MEDP”.


Given that the only partnership the UK is seeking to agree is with Rwanda, this is now £368 million willing to be committed. Can the Minister be clear what the projection costs are for 2025 and 2026, so that we have transparency.

These Benches want an immigration system that is efficient and fair, allows for regulated movement of people for our economy and takes into consideration need and capacity. We want a system that is not gamed, either from those within the UK or by organised crime abroad, but is one where we reject the pernicious and deliberate conflation of economic migration and those seeking asylum from political and personal persecution. That conflation meant that the previous Home Secretary and the Minister in this House repeated the untruth that

“there are 100 million people who could qualify for our protection, and they are coming here”.

Well, there are not, and they are not—and the Lords Minister stopped repeating this trope only after I cited the condemnation of the UK Statistics Authority, which formally asked Ministers not to repeat it.

The Home Office is a serial offender. Last week, the head of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to my colleague Alistair Carmichael MP about the Prime Minister’s wholly misleading statement on 2 January in which he said he had got rid of the backlog of asylum decisions by the end of 2023. It was misleading because the Home Office ignored 5,000 so-called “hard cases”, as it defines them. In a withering reply, Sir Robert Chote said that it was

“not surprising that the Government’s claim has been greeted with scepticism and that some people may feel misled”.

Furthermore, it should be noted the Home Office went full Kafka last week in sending us supporting evidence for its Bill. That evidence included this treaty, which it negotiated itself. And the justification for the necessity of this treaty, the Government say, is their own Bill.

Part of the pack is an updated country note for Rwanda, which updates one published just last spring. The one with barely dry ink was slightly inconvenient as it said a little too much about Rwanda’s human rights record and problems in processing asylum. Now, the language on human rights has been eased, massaged and sanitised. I emailed the independent inspectorate tasked with reviewing the country note and was told it had not yet concluded a review of the previous one to verify it. The Government, so eager to change the conclusions, did not even wait for the evidence from their own independent inspection body. All these aspects get to the central part of the issue and are why we must verify the treaty’s assertions before they are brought into force.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was clear. In paragraph 104, it says:

“The matters which we have discussed are evidence of a culture within Rwanda of, at best, inadequate understanding of Rwanda’s obligations under the Refugee Convention”.


As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, the UNHCR position on Rwanda’s insufficient processes, the UK MoU and now the treaty and Bill are also clear—and it is responsible for interpreting the convention. But the Government have sought to undermine the UNHCR; on 24 May last year, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who is in his place, told the House:

“The UNHCR is clearly a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 968.]


Paragraph 65 of the Supreme Court ruling says:

“The first relevant factor is the status and role of UNHCR. It is entrusted by the United Nations General Assembly with supervision of the interpretation and application of the Refugee Convention”.


There can be no stronger rebuttal of the Government than that.

The Supreme Court also stated:

“It is also apparent from the evidence that significant changes need to be made to Rwanda’s asylum procedures, as they operate in practice, before there can be confidence that it will deal with asylum seekers sent to it by the United Kingdom in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. The necessary changes may not be straightforward, as they require an appreciation that the current approach is inadequate, a change of attitudes, and effective training and monitoring”.


I asked the Government, with regard to their treaty commitment on refoulement, when the proposed mechanisms would be ready. The Minister replied to me, and in his response said:

“This mechanism is in development and will be in place once the partnership is operational”.


“In development”, and a process that may be extended with unlimited extensions. Does

“will be in place once … operational”

mean that they will need to be in place before it becomes operational, or that they will be put in place after the treaty is operational? It is unclear, and the Minister needs to be clear.

Equally opaque is the appeals process, which is fundamental to the court’s ruling. This is covered in Annexe B in the treaty. Given that these need to be in place in advance of the agreement coming into force, when will they be operational? I asked for a planned date. The reply with regard to the judges appointed was:

“The precise number of judges (and precise mix of nationalities) is being considered by the UK and Rwandan Governments … The process for selecting the co-presidents is being developed by the UK and Rwandan Governments and we will set this out in due course”.


We see “in due course” again, and “is being considered”, and “is being developed”. I asked the Government about the training of the judges, which the treaty says will have to be in place, and when that would be complete. Again, it is “being discussed”.

Article 14 also commits to Rwandan security service officers, which they term “liaison officers”, being part of the UK asylum process,

“including the screening of asylum seekers”.

This is quite extraordinary, given that the UK has provided asylum to six Rwandans after the Government had stated that Rwanda itself was a safe country. And there is no treaty restriction on the limits of the access to the operational processes of the Rwandan security services in screening UK asylum applications. Given that I was monitored and spied on after meeting an opposition leader in Kigali, I say to the Minister with great seriousness that this section needs very careful consideration.

Finally, Article 19 covers the resettling of asylum seekers currently in Rwanda to the UK, which the noble Baroness referenced. The Minister replied to me, saying that the UK was now committed to receiving those asylum seekers from Rwanda who are the most vulnerable. If Rwanda cannot accommodate vulnerable asylum seekers in Rwanda, why are the Government proposing to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda? I also asked how many there were. The Government said:

“As the partnership is not yet operational, we have no figure or specific information to provide to you as to the number of non-Rwandan refugees who may be resettled in the UK or their circumstances. We expect this number to be very small”.


The Minister’s response to me sought to be reassuring. He said:

“This is not a 1:1 agreement”.


I think most people will be reassured by that—but if it is not one for one, what is the figure and when will we know? Is it capped?

The Government cannot legislate new facts that are more politically palatable; they cannot mislead by deliberately misstating data; they cannot release new reports that sanitise ones that themselves have just been released; they cannot expect us to ratify a treaty when its essential elements remain unclear, with no details of timeframe or even of its commencement. They cannot do these things and expect us to turn away or to say, as some might, “Something must be done; this is something, so we must do this”—or, as the Foreign Secretary told me last week, on the lack of any of the promised new safe and legal routes, we just have to do it because we have to think out of the box. The Supreme Court was pretty clear in paragraph 104 of the ruling that when it comes to safety, thinking in the legal box is a practical necessity. The treaty does not in itself create a new reality, and therefore there are too many outstanding questions for us to assent to its ratification now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who I know will appreciate, although I think he and I will disagree on this topic, that I always listen to anything he says with real care, and often I learn from it. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his illustrious committee for the report, which I have read and reread. I am also grateful to the powers that be for providing time for this debate, which the noble and learned Lord opened with his customary skill and persuasiveness. As judges who find themselves in a minority are wont to say, I have the misfortune to take a different view. So, although I will vote for the first Motion if there is a Division on it, I will vote against the second.

Let me clear one point out of the way first, although it is an important point, about the procedure that lies behind this debate. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst explained, under the current legislation this House cannot block the treaty. That is as it should be: it would be a significant rewriting of the role of this House for it to block a treaty or to do any such thing. Under the relevant Act, the other place can delay a treaty again and again, but this House has no such power. I accept that there is a real debate to be had about the role that Parliament, and especially the other place, should have with regard to the review and ratification of treaties. This all used to be done under the prerogative, but times have moved on.

My friend—not in the parliamentary sense but in the actual real-world sense—Alexander Horne has co-authored a paper with Professor Hestermeyer on this topic, under the aegis of the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy, and I am grateful to them for advance sight of it. I do not agree with all the paper’s conclusions—Alex will, I hope, forgive me for saying that—but it is a valuable contribution to an important debate. As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, our procedures in this context are not replicated in many other countries and may well require review and perhaps updating. But that is not the issue today; the issue today is not our procedures for ratifying and discussing treaties but the treaty itself. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst noted, the issue is the treaty, not the Bill, which we will debate at Second Reading next week.

I know that many noble Lords do not like the Bill—I look forward to some vigorous and perhaps lengthy debates on the Bill—but next week’s Bill is not today’s topic. We are looking at the treaty, not the Bill, although it is interesting that I have not so far—I think I am the last speaker from the Back Benches—heard a speech today that says, “I like and support the Government’s policy in this area and I will vote for the Bill next week, but I just don’t like this treaty or the way the Government have gone about it”. For some reason, those opposing the treaty also oppose the policy underlying it and will also no doubt oppose the Bill next week.

I suggest that there is nothing objectionable about the treaty, what it does or what it says. It improves the protections as compared with the previous memorandum, not least by providing that persons can be removed from Rwanda to the UK, and only to the UK, thus directly addressing the risk of refoulement that lay at the heart of the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The thrust of the argument of those in support of the second Motion is, “We can’t be sure that the Rwandan Government will actually do what they say they will do”. That is not the view I take, but it is a position that of course I understand, in which case I respectfully say: put some measures into the Bill to make sure that the Rwandan Government live up to their obligations; or, if noble Lords cannot be satisfied by way of such amendments, vote against the Bill. To pick up the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: if you do not like the foundations, do not build the skyscraper—but let us have the argument about the skyscraper, not the foundations.

Before I sit down, I will respond to an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which deserves a proper response. He made the point that my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth was wrong when he informed the House, when he spoke from the Front Bench, that the view of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees as to the interpretation of the refugee convention was not binding. That was the point that the noble Lord made this afternoon; he has made it before as well. His contention was that it is binding. He also said that the Supreme Court has said that it is binding. He quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court—let me reply to it.

The statement he referred to in the decision of the Supreme Court was that the UNHCR is entrusted with the

“supervision of the interpretation and application of the Refugee Convention”.

The Supreme Court did say that, but that shows that the UNHCR is not itself mandated with giving a binding interpretation of the convention. It does not have that right. Its role is to supervise the interpretation of the convention by the signatory states.

Indeed, the Supreme Court goes on to make that point in the rest of the paragraph from which he quotes, paragraph 64 of the judgment. The Supreme Court goes on to say, citing its own decision in the case of Al-Sirri in 2013, that the UNHCR’s guidance—note that word, guidance—as to the interpretation of the convention

“should be accorded considerable weight”.

So it should, but when judges say that something should be accorded considerable weight, they are necessarily saying that it is not binding. The UNHCR does not hold the pen on the interpretation of the convention. That was the point that my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth made, and indeed it is a point that I have made on previous occasions.

I am very happy to give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful, since the noble Lord mentioned me, because I know interventions are unusual in this debate. I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Murray, word for word from Hansard when he said:

“The UNHCR is … a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the … convention”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 968.]


The Supreme Court disagreed very clearly. I did not insert the word “binding”; Hansard will show that. I quoted like for like, and I think the Supreme Court’s position was perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was wrong.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I know that this is a legalistic point, but that is the thing about the Supreme Court: it tends to make them. It went out of its way to say that the UNHCR is not interpreting the convention; it is supervising the interpretation of the convention by the signatory states. That may seem to be a subtle distinction, but it is critical, because it remains the right of the states themselves to interpret the convention. At least we have managed to have one intervention in this afternoon’s debate. That exchange has shown that we can all look forward to some interesting and vigorous debates next week and thereafter—but that is not today’s business.

I invite the House not to take a sideswipe at the policy—or, in advance, at the Bill—by way of the second Motion. Of course, we should support the first Motion, but I urge the House to vote against the second Motion.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Government for this. I am not sure that I am going to go down the route of, “What took us so long?” I recall Tony Blair talking about banning Hizb ut-Tahrir. I even recall our new noble friend the Foreign Secretary talking about it in 2010, before becoming Prime Minister, saying that it was something that would be done. Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that it has been done.

I guess I declare an interest: I am a Jew, and very proud of it. I know full well what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants to do to me, my family and my co-religionists. I am grateful to the Minister for this measure, so obviously I will support it.

However, the Minister will know that I do not miss an opportunity—and I will not miss this opportunity. While the Government are on a roll and have done the right thing, they know that I and others in this House believe that the IRGC should be going in exactly the same way. The IRGC are the masters of everything that we do not like, in the way that the Minister described at the beginning. While thanking him, I hope that he will not mind me asking for a little bit more. The IRGC needs to be proscribed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the measure so clearly. I agree with what he said. It is regrettable that I have had to cover a number of organisations to be proscribed—regrettable because we are living in an age, unfortunately, when there are organisations which abuse our liberties and freedoms. They are either terrorist organisations themselves or they support terror.

Indeed, we live in an age of heightened conflict. Next week, I and other noble Lords will be considering another suite of sanctions related to the conflict in Ukraine, and I will be receiving a delegation of Lebanese who are fearful for the security in that country—the country the Minister referred to.

These are difficult times. Therefore, as we protect our communities as well as our freedoms and liberties, it is unfortunately necessary to have measures such as these. The Minister said, quite rightly, that there are high bars to be reached before proscription. I know that he will not comment on the previous attempts at proscription—I also read the reference to the previous calls; I do not expect him to comment on that—but I will ask him a few questions on the measures coming forward.

Climate Change: Migration

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always interesting for me when I speak on behalf of my Benches and yet agree with every single world that has been said by all previous speakers in the debate. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on bringing this debate to us. In many respects, this is the issue of our time, in this generation, and it is incumbent on us, as leaders of this generation in the world, to ensure that we correct—or at least ameliorate—some of the issues and start to have some solutions so that we do not pass this issue on to another generation who will be even less equipped than us to address it.

I left the debate on the Abraham Accords in Grand Committee, in which I spoke, early in order to be in the Chamber for this debate. In Grand Committee, we referenced the natural disasters in Morocco and Libya. Although it was a debate on the geopolitical relationships between countries on the one hand, noble Lords were also seeking to address the impact of climate and people movement in the Gulf, Middle East and north Africa, as we are in this debate. They are connected, as are so many areas. It is interesting that the Home Office Minister is responding to this debate; the Home Office is, in many respects, a recipient department that probably sees itself as having to try to address this issue, whereas the Foreign Office and the Treasury are departments in government that we need to hold to account because they have more tools available to them to address the root causes. I will return to that issue in a moment.

I regret to say that we are a long way from having a fully integrated government approach on the climate emergency and its consequences when it comes to the movement of people. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was right: the debate in the Chamber on the Horn of Africa meant that we could have a debate on the impact on the individual human, rather than simply all the statistics and figures. However, the statistics and figures, with which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, started, are stark. The Groundswell report by the World Bank, from which I believe he sourced his statistics, indicated that the 260 million people who are likely to migrate as a result of climate change are doing so within their own countries.

The backcloth of the debate is not only natural disasters and the climate emergency. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, myself and others, including the Minister, are veterans of the Illegal Migration Bill. I regret to say that we saw then how the Government were quite willing to weaponise the fear around the statistics on the number of people being forcibly displaced. The Home Secretary said that 105 million people are on the move and are coming here—of course they were not. Migration being used as a tool to create fear for political purposes is not unique to our Government; this is, regrettably, becoming a trend in other countries that are among the richest in the world.

When we look at the World Bank statistics, they require global consideration. In east Asia and the Pacific, the World Bank estimates that 49 million people will be displaced in their own countries owing to climate change. In south Asia, it is 40 million. The noble and right reverend Lord indicated that the figure is 86 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 17 million in Latin America. These are enormous figures. We have seen, in certain areas, ways to try to address the issue.

The World Bank indicated that it could be addressed if we act now to cut global greenhouse gases, to integrate climate migration into green, resilient and inclusive development planning, to plan for each phase of the migration, with proper strategic planning of countries working together, and to invest in understanding the drivers. The World Bank indicated that the numbers that I cited could be reduced by up to 80% if we act—so all is not lost. Therefore, the focus must be on how Governments such as the UK’s can be leaders in that action.

Unfortunately, in many respects, we are being embarrassed by other countries that are most affected and are taking the lead themselves. Over the summer, and at the moment—this was referenced in Questions earlier in the Chamber—African countries have signed a continental agreement to address climate mobility, led by Kenya and Uganda, at the Africa climate summit in Nairobi. John Kerry was there, representing the US President, and the IOM and the other networks were putting together a strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate who represented the UK at the Africa climate summit in Nairobi. I hope that there was ministerial representation, but, if that was not that case, I hope the Minister will be able to indicate who represented us.

The Government have also, regrettably, stepped back from a leadership role. That is not just my position—the Minister might not be surprised to hear me say that. That was from a former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who resigned because he felt that the Government were resiling from a leadership role. I will quote from his resignation letter. He said:

“More worrying, the UK has visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature. Too often we are simply absent from key international fora”.


He went on:

“The problem is not that the government is hostile to the environment, it is that you, our prime minister, are simply uninterested. That signal, or lack of it, has trickled down through Whitehall and caused a kind of paralysis”.


Now ministerial leadership can change, and we can see, hopefully, some differences in approach. But that seems unlikely. What is harder to reverse are the devastating reductions referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with regards to official development assistance. The very tools which the UK worked with our partners not only to design and fund but to make sure would be effective—thought leadership, financial support at scale, and implementation—have been cut dramatically.

It was the hottest month on record in July this year in this country. At that time, the Government released figures showing that they had cut at least £85 million from the funding of international climate programmes. The UK has reported to the OECD that in 2019-20, we supported the Rio commitment by £1.8 billion. The latest report to the OECD is that has been drastically cut to £449 million. This is not just a case of citing other statistics. These are programmes which have been either reduced massively or cut altogether, and the UK was the global leader in support for them.

The International Development Minister, Andrew Mitchell, reported to Parliament’s International Development Committee and revealed how much the reduced funding was affecting climate programmes. For example, the international forest unit will lose £38 million after being cut by 51%. The adaptation, nature and resilience department is being halved by 51%, losing £23 million—despite Ministers saying that the UK needs to do more to help lower-income countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Adaptation was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. We have pulled back in so many areas from supporting those countries that can least support themselves for adaptation.

The UK partnership for accelerating climate transition is being cut by 49%. Known as PACT, the programme works to accelerate partner countries’ transition to low-carbon development and help aid eligible countries meet their climate targets. These are not academic reductions; these are reductions that will make an impact on our ability to address the very crisis that is causing the migration. So I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Home Office is leading—with other departments in Government—a change of direction. I suspect that we may not hear that, but we cannot wait. This is an emergency. The UK cannot simply be having our political discussions debated upon us receiving; we need to be part of solving the problems. We need a change of policy and that is urgent.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I agree with every single word he said. I also agree with what the Minister said in outlining these measures, which we support from these Benches.

Ever since the formation of this private military consultants group, after the illegal invasion of Crimea by Dmitry Utkin then led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, I have been following not only the activities but the tactics of this group. I followed the fact that it had been recruiting from prisons; that it had carried out its activities way beyond those norms which the noble and gallant Lord indicated; and the spread of its activities, which are on the one hand formally not permitted under Russian law but on the other hand are a very useful tool of Putin to extend some form of terror and influence across the Sahel and other parts of Africa. This led me to be the first in Parliament to call for the group’s proscription in April last year; I did so again on 23 May, 9 June, 7 July, 15 November, 21 December and have done so countless times this year to Ministers from the Home Office, the FCDO and the Treasury. So I am very pleased that the Minister has brought forward these measures to see this evil organisation categorised as exactly what it is: a terrorist organisation.

I was alarmed during this process by some of the responses from the Government. I hope the Minister will allow me to make just a couple of comments with regards to the missed opportunity in not proscribing earlier. On 11 July, my noble friend Lady Northover questioned the Defence Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Citing my calls, my noble friend said that

“surely the case for proscription is now more pressing than ever”.

The Minister replied:

“I would observe that proscription in its own right is perhaps less effective because of the particular environment in which it applies”.—[Official Report, 11/7/23; col. 1644.]


However, that is entirely the point. The Wagner Group has, to some extent, acted with impunity. Therefore, the signal from the UK to act now is very welcome, but it is worth nothing that it was this Government and this Treasury who issued a sanction avoidance licence to the leaders of this terrorist group in order to use the English legal system in palpably malign legal activities under a SLAPPs action. It was this Government’s Treasury that permitted the abuse of our system, therefore His Majesty’s Government—and Her Majesty’s Government before—have been slow to act. There was a Treasury derogation of sanctions that this Parliament had approved; we in this House would have said that that was outrageous had we been informed. I say this to the Minister: I hope that there will be no other actions such as those sanctions derogations for the other groups that the noble and gallant Lord indicated are acting similarly to the Wagner Group.

My second point relates to some of the areas where this group has been acting; the Minister and other Ministers have heard me say this before. I have seen Wagner operatives in Sudan at first hand. I saw them in Khartoum. I have seen the breadth of their work, not just purely within terrorism activities but in misinformation, disinformation and disruption of processes. Regrettably, they have continued to operate. I have raised in Grand Committee the fact that the Wagner Group has been contracted through a number of joint ventures that Russia has operated in—one with regards to the Kush gold project in Sudan with the United Arab Emirates. At this gold project, Wagner has been under its security consultant’s arm. I am sure that they are but I hope the Minister can confirm that all elements of the Wagner network are so proscribed, and that there is no loophole where some form of private sector separate contracting security operatives could operate within this. Wagner, operating under security for the Kush gold project, which provides funds to one of the warring parties to Sudan—the Rapid Support Forces—is in effect, to my knowledge, being operated under a financial vehicle between Russia and the UAE. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate what discussions we are having with our allies to ensure that any commercial relationship with the Wagner network, or those who advise the Wagner network, will also be within scope of the Home Office’s activity.

In supporting this measure, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will be assertive not just in following suit with our friends in the European Union and the United States—I welcome the fact that the Government are in discussions with them—but in using all of the money laundering measures that we have in place and our diplomatic relations with those in the Gulf to indicate that their relationships with this network are now beyond the pale for any UK operatives. I would be more than welcome a briefing from officials in due course should the Minister allow me to do so because it is simply the case, as we all know, that proscribing is welcome but is not the end of the process. It is about how we ensure that it is implemented not just alone but with our allies in order to ensure that this evil network is halted in its activities, which are against humanity.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the Home Secretary for giving the Statement yesterday. This is the right thing to do; maybe it is a bit late in the day but it is the right thing to do.

The problem we have in this area is that we are not always consistent. We have done the right thing here but I have here on my phone the front page of the Jewish Chronicle, published today before the Jewish New Year, which is tomorrow night. The headline reads:

“James Cleverly: ‘We will not ban Iran’s Terror Guards’”.


In everything that was read out by the Minister, you could cut and paste in “IRGC”. The IRGC has done everything—and more, in my view—that the Wagner Group has done in terms of the UK. I know that the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister will say it is under review and all of that, but it is the consistency that I hope the Government will look at. In the middle of the interview, it says here that Foreign Secretary Cleverly said that

“he would not ‘speculate’ on whether the policy might change in future, pointing out that any decision of this kind would be taken ‘across government’, not by the Foreign Office alone”.

I welcome that statement because it seems that everybody across government is supportive of the proscription of the IRGC; it just seems to be that the Foreign Office is not. I congratulate the Minister today but I do wish we would be consistent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. A lot of ground has been covered, and I am encouraged by the supportive atmosphere in which the discussion has taken place. Members of the Wagner Group are terrorists, plain and simple, and am I confident that the House recognises, as do the British people, that we have a moral responsibility to act. We must and will confront terrorism wherever and however it occurs, and that is why we are taking this action.

I turn to the specific points raised. I start by reassuring, I hope, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that, in addition to our continued training offer to the national police of Ukraine to support Ukraine’s collection of evidence of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, the Home Office is currently providing short-term funding to the war crimes documentation centre, run by a Ukrainian NGO in Warsaw. It ensures that first-hand testimony from Ukrainian refugees in Poland is recorded. The UK is also providing £2.5 million to the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to support Ukraine’s domestic investigations and prosecution of international crimes. We are also working extremely closely with the ICC in support of its investigations. That is a very comprehensive package of support, and I hope it continues and is enhanced.

A number of noble Lords asked what would happen if the Wagner Group merges with the Russian MoD or Redut. HMG keep the list of proscribed organisations under very careful review. It is not government policy to comment on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription or whether the Government will consider a specific organisation, but proscription sends a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group presents opportunities for impactful disruption of its activities, and I will come back to that later.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Polak asked why it has taken so long. The decision has not been taken in isolation. It builds on a strong response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the Wagner Group’s wider destabilising activities, including extensive sanctions. The Government sanctioned the Wagner Group in February 2022, imposing asset freezes on any funds identified as belonging to Wagner in the UK and travel bans on any of its members. The Foreign Secretary expanded these sanctions in July this year, with 30 new UK sanctions targeting a range of individuals and businesses linked to the actions of the Wagner Group in Africa. The House will be aware of the recent significant events surrounding the Wagner Group, so it was right for the Home Secretary to consider the impact of those key events when taking the proscription decision.

Now is the time to proscribe. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group, as I have just said, presents opportunities to disrupt its activities. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. This proscription reiterates the UK’s unwavering support to Ukraine and condemns Russia’s aggression, Wagner’s role in the war in Ukraine and its wider activities, which have consistently been linked to human rights violations, as others have noted.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what the impact of proscription is. It sends a very clear message and will enable us to disrupt significantly. In addition to the proscription offences, proscription can support other disruptive activity, including the use of immigration powers, encouraging the removal of online material, EU asset freezes and so on. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked why Prigozhin was able to circumvent sanctions to sue a journalist in this country. I refer the House to the statement made on this matter by my noble friend Lady Penn on 30 March this year. Following a review of how these licences are granted, it is now the Government’s view that in most cases the use of funds frozen due to sanctions for the payment of legal professional fees for defamation cases is not an appropriate use of funds and, in many cases, will be against the public interest. OFSI will in future take a presumption that legal fees relating to defamation and similar cases will be rejected.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked for clarification of the application of proscription offences. The membership offence under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000—TACT—has extraterritorial jurisdiction, applying to anyone, wherever they are in the world. The support offence applies to any UK citizen or resident. Terrorist financing offences could also apply outside the UK. Once Wagner is proscribed, we will expect social media companies to identify and remove content that promotes or supports the Wagner Group.

I anticipated the question by my noble friend Lord Polak on the IRGC and I understand it, because there is obviously significant parliamentary, media and public interest in a potential proscription decision. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed IRGC proscription, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe. As Ministers have previously made clear to the House, the IRGC’s destabilising and hostile activity is unacceptable, and we will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK and our interests at home and abroad. That includes considering proscription where appropriate.

The UK Government have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. While the department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review, as I have said, our policy is not to comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases, and I am unable to provide further details on this issue. Ministers have previously confirmed to the House that this decision was under active consideration, but they will not provide a running commentary. I say to my noble friend that there is one difference: the IRGC is an Iranian military body answerable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. The Home Secretary’s role, as discussed in relation to Wagner, is to consider all available evidence before arriving at a decision.

A number of noble Lords asked what efforts have been made to persuade international allies to take co-ordinated action against the Wagner Group. His Majesty’s Government continue to work with key international partners to ensure that the Wagner Group is held to account on the world stage and to promote global efforts to curtail Wagner’s destabilising activity. When it comes to proscription decisions, the Home Secretary will consider the position of key international partners and, where appropriate, departments will undertake proactive engagement to explore the benefits of concerted multilateral action to increase the effect of proscription. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have been very supportive of international engagement over this particular decision. I would also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is very comprehensive and there is no way for Wagner or its offshoots to hide.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about Contest. I refer to the Government’s recent refresh of the integrated review, which set out that the UK will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK against the modern threats we face.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will be happy if the Minister wishes to write to me on this, but I raised a point regarding entities that have contracted the Wagner Group as private security. This can include joint ventures with commercial organisations and countries we have friendly diplomatic relations with, including in the Gulf. Can the Minister write to me about how we will apply the extraterritorial aspects of this with regard to that component? That is very important to ensure that there is no avoidance of the very valid reasons we are doing this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. He reminds me that I should have commented on his comments about a very specific country, which of course I am not really able to do in detail. I am sure that diplomatic efforts and overtures are ongoing. I am certainly happy to write to the noble Lord in as much detail as I am able to.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I brought a variation of this amendment to the House on Report. I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I said in that debate that this amendment is very simple. It is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what we have just heard they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. This should therefore be a simple amendment to respond to. The moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the existence of safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are committed to creating legal and safe routes. That therefore needs to be reflected in the Bill.

For the purpose of clarity, I will take two minutes to lay out both the framework that sits alongside this Motion already and why the Government can feel confident in accepting it. First, as we have just heard, the Government have total freedom to undertake consultation with local authorities in any way they choose to ascertain the capacity that exists for local authorities to welcome refugees and asylum seekers through safe and legal routes. This is already committed to in the Bill.

Secondly, the Government then draft their own report, which they have already committed to doing by the end of January. This is already committed to in the Bill. Even then, the number of people who would be able to come via those safe and legal routes would be subject to a cap, as decided and voted on by this House. This is already in the Bill. This is the framework under which this Motion would sit. Its purpose, therefore, is that, within those limits and that context—all of which are already committed to in the Bill—the Government would then have a duty to do what they say they want to do: create safe and legal routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission and one that this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.

I am grateful to the Minister for making the statement that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and implement them as soon as is practicable—in any event, by the end of 2024. However, if this really is the case, surely the Government would want to place it in the Bill, too, so that it cannot get lost with the passage of the time and electoral cycles, as has happened with the consultation, the publication of the report and the structure of the cap. Surely, at the very least, the Government would want to place a duty on themselves to have brought in safe and legal routes no later than the end of 2024.

Let me turn to the timeframe that has been introduced to this revised version of the Motion. I have chosen a timeline of three months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for three reasons: first, this will be nine months after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal and respect the proper process to which the Minister referred; secondly, it is enough time for the Bill to have had effect in stopping the small boats if it is going to do so; and, thirdly, it will ensure that the commitment as set out in legislation should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. As I mentioned on Report, if the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline in the Bill, I would welcome that conversation, but I have not yet heard of an alternative legally binding timeframe from the Minister.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For all the talk of safe and legal routes, we have reached ping-pong with no commitment to them as part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I will support the noble Baroness if she presses her amendment to the Motion. I wish to make two points very briefly, but before doing so I declare an interest. I returned last night from the Horn of Africa, where, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, many of the discussions I had with parliamentary colleagues from that region related to this Bill and the damage we are doing to our international reputation.

My first point relates to a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, sent me after the conclusion of Report stage. I thank him for it. It referred to one of the existing schemes that the Government operate. It is an uncapped scheme—the UK resettlement scheme. In Committee and on Report I asked for clarification of whether the Government’s uncapped scheme has, by virtue of ministerial discretion, in effect become capped.

That scheme, which is global, is now being prioritised only for those from Afghanistan, in effect closing routes from all other countries that we have debated in this debate so far. It took until the 10th paragraph of the Minister’s letter to say, effectively, that I was correct. He said:

“As a result, we are necessarily prioritising those who have been referred by the UNHCR and who are already awaiting resettlement”.


That means that we have closed the safe and legal routes that we are seeking to expand, as the noble Baroness has argued for.

The Advocate-General for Scotland suggests that the Government should not be criticised for having a delay. The outstanding question is: why do the Government not have a baseline capacity now that any safe and legal routes would operate under, and what funding would be available to it? Which countries are the Government considering as candidate countries for new safe and legal routes? The Government’s opaqueness suggests that they do not have a plan that would be ready on the conclusion of the Bill, so it is necessary that we put in statute the guarantee that we will have these routes.

The second point I wish to ask the Minister for clarification on is the use of overseas development assistance. The Government have used overseas development assistance to score all the budgets for those to be resettled under the Bill—indeed, for asylum under all the schemes for safe and legal routes. This is at a cost of £1.9 billion of ODA, which has been taken away from other development projects in many of the candidate countries from which we are seeking safe and legal routes.

I understand that the Bill, and the way it has been drafted, means that the Home Office will no longer be able to score any of those individuals who will be deemed inadmissible under overseas development assistance. That means that, under the current budget, the Home Office itself would have to find up to £1.9 billion of expenditure which could not be scored against overseas development assistance. Under the Development Assistance Committee rules, the Government are now placing on the taxpayer inordinate sums of money for a Bill that cannot be operated and is inoperable. Will the Advocate-General confirm to me now that that is the case and the measures under this Bill will mean that the current way that the Government are funding those to be resettled will no longer be able to be used and there is an enormous black hole in the funding of this scheme?

Regardless of the answer, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. We need the guarantee because, so far, the Government have been woeful in offering any reassurance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I would just like to say how much these Benches support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the reasons she outlined in her introduction. If she seeks to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support her.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

I welcome the decision of the Government to find a formula for safe and legal routes but urge them to incorporate within it a small element which would enable us to respond to such individual cases of extreme persecution, including of those who are targeted because of their protected characteristics. This year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of which protects the right to believe, not to believe, or to change your belief. It is also the 75th anniversary of Raphael Lemkin’s genocide convention. This would be a small contribution to putting some of the well-meaning rhetoric in those declarations into practical effect. It is the right thing to do, and I commend this amendment to the House.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He makes his case very well. I also share the views of my noble friend Lord Paddick in his discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the preference is to get to a place where we can have a broader view. That is where my Amendment 165 is trying to land us—so that we can have a means by which those who seek asylum can have a safe and legal route which is not country-specific. I will return to that in a moment.

I was pleased to listen very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, making her case. I hope that the Minister reflects very carefully on what was presented to him in very measured terms. The currency of commitments by Ministers at the Dispatch Box is not as it was. Therefore, if the noble Baroness presses this amendment to the vote, these Benches will support her. We need in this Bill a commitment that there will be safe and legal routes, so it will be very important.

Before I turn to Amendment 165, I will speak briefly to Amendment 167 on family pathways, tabled by my noble friend Lady Ludford, who cannot be here today. This is another area where the absence of a pathway for family reunion has a perverse incentive that draws people towards smuggling and therefore the dangerous channel crossings, as well as preventing the accelerating of integration in the UK of those family members. Refugee family reunion is particularly important for women and children, who make up 90% of those who are granted visas. The damage that this Bill will do is substantive. I hope that the Minister can reflect on that point and give a proper response.

Amendment 165 is a version of an amendment that I tabled in Committee. The Minister challenged me to try to present some figures on its impact. I told him that I would be able to present an estimate of its impact, after reflecting on the Government’s impact assessment. This impact assessment has been debated a lot since we were given sight of it—including the boxes for government estimates of costs that remain blank. But one thing that is certain, and which I can say with assurance, is that the protected claim route for a safe and legal route under this amendment would be cheaper to the British taxpayer than the costs of detention and removal detailed in the impact assessment. Indeed, as the children’s impact assessment said, a safe and legal route would be a means by which we would have an effective way of protecting children.

There can now be no doubt that the route the Government are seeking to go down in the Bill is the most expensive for the taxpayer. We have to find ways to have a safe and legal route that is not country specific and that has considerable thresholds and conditions, high enough not to need a quota but sufficient to allow those under the greatest level of persecution to secure access and a route for a protected claim to the UK. Of course, the critical aspect is that that would be valid only if there is consideration of it being a successful cause. That is possible and the costs would be lower.

I hope the Minister can also give positive news on what the Government expect a safe and legal route that is not country specific to be. In Committee, I asked the Minister about the status of what we have at the moment, which is a safe and legal route that is not country specific—the UK resettlement scheme through the UNHCR. I do not need to remind the House that that scheme is demand led and operates on the basis of information provided by local authorities, acting in isolation or in a regional group and stating that they can accommodate and resettle those who are seeking asylum via the UNHCR. That is the existing means; it is problematic and expensive, and my amendment seeks to improve it.

The major deficiency at the moment is what the Independent Commission for Aid Impact said in its review of the Government’s use of overseas development assistance funding for the UK resettlement scheme: the UK Government asked the UNHCR not to make any referrals to the UK unless they were from Afghanistan. I have asked the Minister twice now—I did again in Committee—whether this was the case. The Minister replied:

“I do not have that detail to hand so I will go away and find that out and write to the noble Lord”.—[Official Report, 14/6/23; col. 1981.]


If the theme is taking Ministers at the Dispatch Box at their word, presumably the Minister went away and found out whether that was the case. He has not written to me, so I expect the answer when he winds up on this group today. He really needs to tell us, given that he told me that he would in Committee. That is on the record in Hansard, so I look forward to the Minister stating whether that is the case.

The other aspect on which we need clarity is that the Minister has said that any new safe and legal route will depend on the capacity in local authorities. That capacity is both demand led and need led. Local authorities can offer space for the UK resettlement scheme through individual councils or strategic migration partnerships, so the Home Office must have a current estimate of the level of capacity of local authorities through the strategic migration partnerships receiving through the UK resettlement scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

The second is that the Home Office provides tariff funding for local authorities, either individually or as a group, for those being resettled. My concern with the government proposal, and why we need clarity in the Bill, is that the Government could state that there is no capacity in local authorities, not because a local authority has said that it does not have capacity but because the Government have reduced its tariff funding. So they can flick the switch: they can state there is no capacity because they are unwilling to give a tariff support.

As we know, at the moment, community sponsorship is part of the UK resettlement scheme. The Government consider it a safe and legal route, and we have seen it so wonderfully in the Ukrainian scheme. But the Government seem very loath to test the community sponsorship scheme for other people who are seeking asylum. I am certain that it would not be easy and that there would be consequences. But if those in this country of ours were asked in a community sponsorship scheme for young people who are potentially at direct risk in Iran and Sudan, and if they met certain thresholds and the scheme could operate a protective claiming element to them, I am certain we would be able to find the capacity that we needed.

Finally, with all the Government’s assurances, we see the deficiencies in their current approach in live time. Judicial review is about to start in Northern Ireland on the Government’s evacuation from Sudan. I declare the interest of my activities within Sudan and the civilian community there. The review is asking why the Government have provided support for those from Ukraine but is refusing it for those from Sudan on exactly the same basis. I am afraid that we cannot rely on this Government to have individual schemes. Therefore, we need safe and legal routes and a commitment in the Bill. We cannot simply take the commitments from the Dispatch Box. This needs to be in law.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 164. I will speak strongly but briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stroud. I spoke to this matter in Committee. What a disappointment it is that the Government and many of their spokesmen have made it perfectly plain that they are going to introduce safe and legal routes but, as others have said, without any clarity at all as to what they mean. Indeed, I have been saddened to hear a number of people in the other place confusing a safe and legal route with a programme of the United Nations, which is a separate matter altogether, aimed at specific countries in the world.

As I previously stated, I was responsible as a Minister for the United Nations Bosnian refugee settlement scheme in the 1990s. This country can be very proud of that scheme, but it was organised very much internationally and we played a noble part. If the Minister is mixing it up—I do not think that he is—or if the Government are, and thinking that these schemes will satisfy this particular area, they are mistaken.

I also put it very quickly to my noble friend that, prior to 2011, and certainly in the time that I was Minister, we had at our embassies and consulates around the world provision for dealing with applications for asylum to this country. This spread out the ability to grant asylum very widely. In view of the fact that there are so many countries of the world that claim to be freedom-loving and democratic but where individuals and groups of people have prejudice shown against them, would it not be sensible—and take the pressure off the masses who might arrive in the channel, for instance—if we were to have a much wider approach restored in our representations around the world, as we used to have?

I ask my noble friend this in all seriousness because, although we are not specifically requesting it in this amendment, I think it would satisfy us if the Government were to agree to that or at least to look at it again. It would save considerable resources and go some way to restoring the Government’s credibility in relation to the Bill where, I am afraid, despite many wise and sensible suggestions by this House, the Government seem outrageously unable to accept anything that we are suggesting. So I put it to my noble friend: please let us look at this again and, in the meantime, please make sure that Amendment 164 is accepted by the Government, in view of the fact that they have spoken so strongly in favour of it in other places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. My noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, made some powerful points, in particular on the presumed impact of some of these amendments on our ability to stop the boats. They also again highlighted the need to link the numbers admitted to the UK through safe and legal routes to our capacity to accommodate and support those who arrive through those routes.

Amendment 162, put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, seeks to exclude certain existing schemes from the safe and legal routes cap provision in this Bill. Exempting routes from the cap is not in keeping with the purpose of the policy, which is to manage the capacity on local areas of those arriving through our safe and legal routes. That said, I would remind the House that the cap does not automatically apply to all current or any future routes. Each route will be considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis. This is due to the individual impact of the routes and the way they interact with the immigration system. This is why my officials are currently considering which routes should be within the cap and this work should not be pre-empted by excluding certain routes from the cap at this stage. I also point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to the power to vary the cap, set out in the Bill, in cases of emergency.

Amendment 163 would see the United Kingdom establish a new route for those who are persecuted on the basis of an individual’s protected characteristics—advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. This would be a completely new approach to international protection that goes far beyond the terms of the refugee convention. At present, all asylum claims admitted to the UK system, irrespective of any protected characteristic, are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. For each claim, an assessment is made of the risk to the individual owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Critically, we also consider the latest available country of origin information.

Under the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there would be no assessment of whether, for the individual concerned, there exists the possibility of safe internal relocation, or whether the state in which an individual faces persecution by a non-state actor could suitably protect them. As well as extending beyond our obligations under the refugee convention, this amendment runs counter to our long-held position that those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach—that remains the fastest route to safety.

Amendment 164, tabled by my noble friend Lady Stroud, seeks to enshrine in law a requirement to bring in new safe and legal routes within two months of the publication of the report required by Clause 60 of the Bill. This puts the deadline sometime next spring. I entirely understand my noble friend’s desire to make early progress with establishing new safe and legal routes, but it is important to follow proper process.

We are rightly introducing, as a number of noble Lords have observed, a requirement to consult on local authority capacity to understand the numbers we can effectively welcome, integrate and support arriving through safe and legal routes. We have committed to launching such a consultation within three months of Royal Assent of this Bill, but we need to allow local authorities and others time to respond and for us to consider those responses. We also, fundamentally, need to make progress with stopping the boats— stopping the dangerous crossings—to free up capacity to welcome those arriving by safe and legal routes.

Having said all that, I gladly repeat the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Immigration that we will implement any proposed additional safe and legal routes set out in the Clause 60 report as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024. In order to do something well, in an appropriate manner, we must have time in which to do so. We are therefore only a few months apart. I hope my noble friend will accept this commitment has been made in good faith and we intend to abide by it and, on that basis, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 165, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would enable those seeking protection to apply from abroad for entry clearance into the UK to pursue their protection claim. Again, such an approach is fundamentally at odds with the principle that a person seeking protection should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. We also need to be alive to the costs of this and indeed the other amendments proposed here. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the costs of Amendment 165, but I have to say that I disagree. Our economic impact assessment estimates a stream of asylum system costs of £106,000 per person supported in the UK.

The noble Lord’s scheme is uncapped; under it, there is a duty to issue an entry clearance to qualifying persons. Let us say for the sake of argument that 5,000 entry clearances are issued in accordance with that amendment each year, under his scheme. That could lead to a liability of half a billion pounds in asylum support each year. What is more, as my noble friend Lord Lilley so eloquently pointed out, it would not stop the boats. Those who did not qualify under the scheme would simply arrive on the French beaches and turn to the people smugglers to jump the queue.

Amendment 166 seeks to create an emergency visa route for human rights defenders at particular risk and to provide temporary accommodation for these individuals. This Government recognise that many brave individuals put their lives at risk by fighting for human rights in their countries. These individuals are doing what they believe to be right, at great personal cost. However, when their lives are at risk, I say again that those in need of international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Such a scheme would also be open to abuse, given the status of human rights defenders, and that anyone can claim to be a human rights defender.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Is the UK resettlement scheme that the Government currently operate capped?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Presently, no, but clearly it will be subject to the cap. The problem, as the noble Lord well knows, is that we cannot take as many people as we would like to from the UNHCR because of the numbers who are coming here, jumping the queue by crossing the channel. That is precisely what these measures in the Bill are designed to address.

Amendment 167 seeks significantly to increase the scope of the UK’s family reunion policy, with no consideration as to how these individuals are to be supported in the UK, which could lead of itself to safeguarding issues. The amendment would even allow individuals to sponsor non-relatives. The present family reunion policy provides a safe and legal route to bring families together. Through this route, we have granted over 46,000 visas since 2015. This is not an insignificant number.

Family reunion in the UK is generous, more so than in the case of some of our European neighbours. Sponsors do not have to be settled in the UK, there is no fee and no time limit for making an application, and there are no accommodation or minimum income requirements which applicants must meet. There is also discretion to grant visas outside the Immigration Rules, catering to wider family members when there are compelling and compassionate factors. Given this track record, I remain unpersuaded of the case for the significant expansion of the family reunion route, as proposed by this amendment.

Finally, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I still owe him a letter arising from the Committee stage debate. I shall ensure that it is with him this week.

It is worth repeating that the people of this country have been generous in offering sanctuary to over half a million people since 2015. But our willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution must be tied to our capacity to do so. Clauses 59 and 60 are designed to this end. We are committed to introducing safe and legal routes by the end of 2024, and we remain open to a debate about whether the cap provided for in the Bill covers the current schemes set out in the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 162. I hope that, on this basis, he and other noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments to a Division. I commend the government amendments to the House and beg to move.

National Security Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To follow my noble friend to conclude from these Benches on this part of the Bill, I wish to commend the Minister for listening and taking back to the department a very strong view from this House that more needed to be done in this area. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his persistence on this area. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. Of course, we all know that there is a distinction between the small donors—those who give small sums of money either as a member or as a supporter of a political party: in my case, in my former constituency, there were all too small numbers of small donors, regrettably, but there were those who would bake a cake for a raffle—and individuals who give really quite enormous sums to political parties. On the one hand, I understand the argument that there should not be a distinction between the two groups, if someone is of wealth and means and they believe in the same thing as someone without wealth and means. However, as my noble friend indicated, with regret I share more the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in this regard.

We would not be where we are in pursuing and being persistent with this issue if we did not know that the Electoral Commission was in effect asking us to do it. I have met the Electoral Commission frequently, and I do not think that it is relevant to highlight its resources when it has been very clear to us in saying that it does not have the powers to carry out what, ultimately, I believe it should be able to carry out—to ask political parties for due diligence as to the source of large donations. I hope that the government review will take us on that journey and provide an evidence base, on which I believe there will be a degree of consensus.

I thank the Government for their response and look forward to the review taking place, especially as it will start with the competent authorities that will have the information available to them. The Government are taking through the economic crime Bill, reforming and updating the mechanisms through unexplained wealth orders. It strikes me that that is a very good opportunity to look at some of the processes around UWOs, which are designed to be streamlined and not burdensome on authorities, to see whether they can be the model by which we would look at the requirements on political parties. On this issue, I have previously talked about the jarring position that, if a politically exposed person who is open to unexplained wealth order mechanisms, instead of giving to a political party used that money to buy a property, the relevant competent authorities would have to go through a process of due diligence for that property. However, as my noble friend said, on the concern about buying influence rather than buying a property, there is no mechanism that is open. I hope that that loophole will be closed. The Government have been clear in their guidance on the duties on the public and competent authorities to access data for unexplained wealth orders, so we should be in a better position.

Finally, as I said in the previous debate, this is likely to be the most expensive year coming up in British politics. I hope that we will have cleaner hands, but they will not be empty. Therefore, it is how we ensure that with the source of that money going into British politics, especially in the lead-up to election campaigns, the transparency is not just around the donor but around where that money is from for substantial donations. I hope very much that we have started the process of rectifying this deficiency in the British system, and I thank the Minister for starting it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how much we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am glad that the Government have listened and come to an amicable agreement with the noble Lord which takes us forward. I thank the Minister for the way he has done that and for the concession that the Government have made on the updating of the memorandum of understanding, although clearly issues remain between the ISC and the Government, hence Motion B1 tabled by my noble friend Lord West, which we support. Aside from the Motion itself, it will allow continuing discussions, and indeed perhaps negotiations, around how the memorandum of understanding can be revised or replaced, including by negotiation, hence its importance.

I think it is really significant that still, even at this late stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord West, speaking on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which gives parliamentary oversight of the activities of the security services, is not happy with where we have arrived at. I think it is incumbent on the Government to reach an agreement with the ISC. Clearly, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord West this afternoon, we are not in a situation where that has occurred. There are all sorts of issues that remain between the Government and the ISC, as has been evidenced by various things that have happened today, and the Government need to respond to those.

I will add just a couple of other points. One is that the Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Minister gave assurances to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding was a live document that would be regularly reviewed and updated. Are the Government of today completely ignoring that commitment that was made to Parliament? If so, we are in a really difficult situation, because it means that parliamentary oversight is undermined by the fact that Ministers making pledges to Parliament can just be ignored in the future by the Government. I say—we often say, all of us say—that we will not press an amendment, on the basis that the Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, makes commitments that are read into the record. That is an important part of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers are asked to do that and Members of Parliament in the other place and noble Lords withdraw amendments. But here we have an example of where the Intelligence and Security Committee is saying that pledges and commitments were made to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding would be regularly updated and the Government have not done that or are still not in agreement with the ISC. I think that is a really important point.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind your Lordships again that I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister to go to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall just say what I believe, and your Lordships will have to make up their own minds. Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the oversight body for this Parliament, I would have thought that if the ISC were regularly asking the Prime Minister to attend, the Prime Minister would go—not because he is compelled to go but because it is an important part of that parliamentary oversight and the Prime Minister of our country negotiating and liaising personally with the Intelligence and Security Committee is of real importance. So I say to noble Lords, as others have heard me say before, that all of us would be surprised by the fact that no Prime Minister has been since 2014; nearly 10 years. It has been nine years, in case I am quoted as not being accurate, since a Prime Minister has been. So I gently say that, while I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister, I politely ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, whether the Home Office has suggested to the Prime Minister that, in his diary, he might consider going to see the Intelligence and Security Committee when he can.

My noble friend Lord West’s amendment raises several important issues, but the most significant is that we need to send a message through supporting it that the ISC is still not at one with the Government. That is a serious issue and needs somehow to be resolved. I believe that supporting my noble friend’s amendment will continue to put pressure on the Government to ensure that they come to an arrangement with the ISC in the end, such is its importance. If my noble friend chooses to test the opinion of the House, we will be happy to support his Motion B1.

National Security Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches will support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, if he tests the opinion of the House. He made the case very adequately, and I need not add anything. These Benches will also support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if he seeks to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1.

The coming year is likely to be the most expensive year in British politics—let us be honest about it—so the time to act is now, rather than having regrets after the next election if there are difficulties with some of the sources of the donations. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is right: it is no longer good enough simply to verify the donor and not the source of the funds.

I used to give tours of the House of Commons when I worked for David Steel—and I also thought that was a toilet behind the Speaker’s chair, after the Speaker no longer used the toilet under his chair with the curtains around it—so I learned something about the Reasons Committee. I do not think it would have taken the committee an hour and 45 minutes to come up with Reason 22A:

“Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation to donations to political parties”.


That was the reason given before the current situation for reporting mechanisms was put in place. It is a reason that has been given by the Government each time there has been a proposal for change. The question is not whether we agree with that reason—which, of course, we should not—but what the merits of the case for seeking extra information about the sources of funding are.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I thank the Minister for the way he has engaged on the Bill. If he does not mind me saying so, it has been a model of how Ministers can operate. But there are these two outstanding issues on which he can use his good counsel with his colleagues in the House of Commons.

I know the Minister made the point that this will potentially delay the Bill a little longer. He will forgive me for saying so, but the Bill was delayed because of the Government bringing forward the foreign influence registration scheme without notice in Committee in the Commons, dumping on us and then having to bring 150 concession amendments. We have done our job and we continue to do it—that is the point of us being here. The time to act is now.

The Minister also mentioned that one of the deficiencies of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is that political parties had not been consulted. That is a bit rich. The Government have not asked the Electoral Commission to ask political parties for their view about it, but then they say that is a problem with the amendment because there was no consultation. That is not really relevant, if the Minister does not mind me saying so.

We have to move to a situation in which we check not just the status of the donor, as the noble Baroness said, but the status of the source of funds. We would do it if a donor was buying property and HMRC was uncertain about the source of the funds—that is why we have unexplained wealth orders. It seems odd, as it seems to be the Government’s and the Minister’s position that the very same person who could be liable for an unexplained wealth order from HMRC if they were buying a property would be able to donate considerable funds to a political party and there would be no questions asked. It does not match. We also have a list of countries where extra checks have to be made by law because of the list of countries in the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regulations that the Minister’s department puts forward.

In that regard, I will ask a couple of questions of the Minister. I hope he is able to answer them today but, if he is not, I will be grateful if he writes to me. In support of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I note that we seem to be in a position in which, over the last seven years, if you are a Conservative treasurer and you donate more than £3 million, you have a unique set of characteristics and skills that will mean that you have a 100% chance of being elevated to this House. If you donate more than £3 million and coincidentally then become the treasurer of the governing party, that governing party elevates you to be a Member of Parliament to hold that governing party to account. This is Britain in the 21st century. I understand that the current treasurer has given £600,000 through Unatrac Ltd and that he has also given personal donations. He is a joint national—I do not cast any aspersions on him whatever. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he does not have a non-dom status. I would also be grateful if the Minister could state where his permanent residency is: London or Cairo. I would be grateful for a simple, straightforward clarification.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could state when Unatrac stopped trading with Russian oil and gas enterprises. Another Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is here—he and I have debated Russian sanctions and trying to clamp down on economic activities with Russia for a long time in this House. Apparently, Unatrac has made a statement that over the last few weeks it has suspended trading with Russian oil and gas. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me when that ceased permanently.

I ask that because, according to the accounts of Unatrac, its immediate parent company is Unatrac Subco Ltd, which is incorporated in Dubai. Unatrac’s ultimate parent undertaking is Unatrac Holding Ltd, based in the UAE. The UAE is on the list of the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regulations; extra requirements have to be made when businesses are carrying out activities from the UAE. The Minister says that political parties that receive millions of pounds in donations do not have to do that. The context we are facing is that over the coming year, as many noble Lords have said, money and politics will affect all political parties. The time to act is now. We must amend the Bill to make sure that we do not regret it in 2025.