Transparency of UK Visa Bans

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

16:39

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to secure this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.

It is often, and rightly, said that the mark of a civilised country is who we offer safe haven to. Equally, who we do not let in says something about our moral character as a nation. The Home Secretary has wide powers to exclude foreign nationals, and successive Governments have stressed that such powers must be exercised in a way that is reasonable, proportionate and consistent, in accordance with the immigration rules. In addition, it should be noted that there is a duty—not just a power—to ban certain people who are subject to EU or UN travel bans. So the powers are there.

In 2005, the former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, stated that the power to exclude had been invoked by successive Governments on the grounds of national security, and after the London bombings of July 2005, the Home Office published a broader list of “unacceptable behaviour” that could form the basis for deportation or exclusion. That “unacceptable behaviour” included fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.

The current Home Secretary made it clear in 2011 that she wanted to take an even more interventionist approach, banning people who hold extreme views even if they are not necessarily or directly inciting or promoting violence. She explained the rationale to the US Council on Foreign Relations, and it is worth quoting her just to provide the context for this debate:

“I think it is right that we have taken a slightly different stance over the last 18 months as a new Government in looking at this, because we believe that this issue of words that are said—what people actually say and how they are able to encourage others through the words that they say—is an important issue for us to address.

That’s why we have chosen in our Prevent strategy, for example, to look not just at violent extremism but at extremism. I think it’s important that we do so. If we’re able to do that, I think that enables us to operate at an earlier level rather than simply waiting until people have gone down the route of violent extremism.”

The grounds for refusal and for exclusion are not limited to terrorist-linked or other violent extremism. A criminal record, or even just obnoxious views, can get someone barred. For example, recently, US shock jock Michael Savage and right-wing activist Pamela Geller, who is also from the States, have been refused entry to Britain.

Overall, if we look at recent history we see that there is a long list of rather curious characters who have been excluded from Britain: from Snoop Doggy Dogg and Chris Brown to Martha Stewart; and from Nobel laureate Pablo Neruda and scientologist Ron Hubbard to Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Along with the positively dangerous, there is a rather rag-tag mix of crooks, kooks and cranks who have been barred from coming here.

There is a legitimate wider debate around all of this. Do we risk suffocating free speech because of undue sensitivity or political correctness if we bar individuals who are not directly inciting violence but are just offensive to certain quarters of society? Who decides where to draw that line, or what the objective criteria are for barring people for bad taste or because they may be regarded by some as insulting? Beyond protecting the public, in the sense of public safety, should the role of a Home Secretary effectively involve acting as some kind of thought police? I am not convinced that we have gone quite that far, but equally I am not convinced that we should go that far. That whole debate is perfectly legitimate.

Putting aside that wider debate, I will focus on a consequential aspect of this issue. On occasion, the names of those denied access to the UK have been disclosed in the past, including—as I have mentioned—where they foster hatred or seek to justify terrorist acts, or where they might spark inter-community unrest. Sometimes people are excluded on the basis of their views alone, rather than because of any physical acts or any crimes of which they have been convicted. In contrast to those examples of publication, when I have asked for clarification about whether those responsible for, or profiting from, torture have been barred from the UK, I have received the stock answer that the Home Office does not routinely publicise the names of individuals who have been barred from entry to the UK.

Hon. Members will remember that, two years ago, the House unanimously called for a UK Magnistky law. That motion was inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, the dissident Russian lawyer who was tortured to death, then prosecuted posthumously on orders from the Kremlin because he had disclosed the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, which was worth $230 million. The answer that was given at the time in response to the call from the House was that the Government already had adequate powers to impose visa bans or asset freezes, but we do not know for sure when or how those powers are exercised. That must be wrong on the grounds of transparency, and in addition to the point of principle about transparency it robs the powers of much of their deterrent effect for those whom we do not want coming to Britain, or applying to come to Britain.

My requests to find out whether the Home Office had allowed entry to any of the so-called Magnitsky 60—the US list of suspects in that appalling case, who were already publicly barred from America—was met with refusal. When I subsequently asked whether Dmitry Klyuev, head of the Klyuev gang and reportedly the mastermind of the fraud disclosed by Magnitsky, had recently been granted a visa to the UK, again the official response was, “No comment.”

That will not do. It cannot be right that, from time to time, Ministers publish the names of those who have been banned because, for example, they may hold obnoxious views, yet on the other hand, they refuse to say if alleged mafia, corrupt Government cronies or those complicit in torture are allowed in. It cannot be right as a matter of policy and it cannot be right as a matter of openness. The British public have a right to know.

In 2012, when he was a Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), tried to justify that rather arbitrary position when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. First, he said that making the names public might lead to the risk of additional litigation. However, it is difficult to see how publicising names adds much to the inherent risk of litigation based on the substantive decision that was made. If anything, greater transparency and clarity about the criteria for banning people might help to reduce the risk of judicial review. Secondly, it was suggested that publication was unreasonable because of sensitivities and confidentiality, but that is wholly untenable. If there are sound public policy grounds to bar entry, they should trump personal, let alone diplomatic, niceties.

Finally and even more tenuously, the hon. Gentleman said that publishing the names might prejudice a trial back home, or put British citizens abroad at risk of retaliation. Again, it is difficult to see why the publication of a refusal of entry would affect the outcome of any fair trial back home, and neither is the risk of retaliation against Britons abroad any greater as a result of such a decision than it is as a result of the countless other decisions that a democratic Government can—and do—legitimately make, which might, at least in theory, spark some utterly irrational backlash abroad by someone, somewhere, at some indefinite point in the future.

In its 2012 report, the Foreign Affairs Committee rejected the arguments that the hon. Gentleman had put forward. Having received evidence on the Magnitsky case, it called for publication of the names of those denied entry to the UK on human rights grounds. Regrettably, the Government have not accepted that recommendation.

There is a far broader point in all of this. If we decide to extradite someone from Britain, that decision is made public, and if we deport someone from Britain, that decision is made public. That transparency is vital, informing the legitimate debate around the policy and the law underpinning the relevant powers and the manner in which they are exercised.

Legislation that deals with deportation is going through Parliament right now in the Immigration Bill precisely because of the need for transparency around deportation. Recently, there was an independent inquiry into extradition, again because of the importance of transparency, and various changes were made to legislation as a result. If there are good grounds for taking the preventive step of barring entry, why do we as policy makers, and the British public at large, face a veil of secrecy?

Added to those domestic considerations, Britain has signed up to a G20 commitment to deny safe haven to corrupt officials. As Global Witness, the international NGO, has argued, how can there be any accountability for that international pledge without transparency about the way in which powers at home are exercised?

I will have another go with the Minister today. Have the following people, for whom there is evidence linking them to the Magnitsky case, been subject to a UK visa ban? In addition, have any of them in practice entered Britain during the past five years? What about Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin, the senior investigator responsible for the whitewash report about the circumstances surrounding Sergei Magnitsky’s death? What about Yuri Yakovlevich Chaika? He was the general prosecutor named by Magnitsky as having overall legal responsibility for the abuses, including torture, that he suffered when he was in detention. Chaika was also responsible for the subsequent whitewashing of the fraud.

What about Chaika’s deputy, Victor Yakovlevich Grin, who ordered the posthumous prosecution of Magnitsky? I think that I am right in saying that that was the first posthumous prosecution in Russian history. What about Victor Gennadievich Voronin, who at the time was the deputy head of Russia’s federal security service and responsible for authorising the original tax fraud, which was the crime that Magnitsky had uncovered? Can the Minister assure the House that these venal men are banned from setting foot on British soil, and indeed have not set foot on British soil?

Today, the wider secrecy around visa bans is relevant to the British response to the crisis in Ukraine. The US list of visa bans is public; the EU list is, too; yet still Britain’s national policy is not to make public the identities of any additional persons who might be subject to a domestic UK ban. What possible reason can there be for this? Is it that we might upset Vladimir Putin? Do not the British people have a right to know whether we have let in people such as Dmyrto Firtash, the Ukrainian oligarch who helped former President Yanukovych into power—arrested recently in Austria; wanted by the US; and investigated by the NGO, Global Witness, that I referred to earlier. He has a charitable foundation in the UK. Has he entered Britain in the past three years? The British people and Parliament have a right to know.

What about Rinat Akhmetov, another Ukrainian oligarch and sponsor of Yanukovych? He is facing investigation by the Swiss authorities. He reportedly owns one of the most expensive apartments in London. Many other Ukrainian politicians-cum-businessmen with links to UK businesses—specific links to Britain—have a cloud of suspicion hanging over their name for corruption: people such as Yuriy Boyko or Yuriy Ivanyushchenko. I readily and proactively say that the allegations against those men might not be true. Maybe they can answer all the claims that have been levelled against them and can rebut the evidence. They should certainly have that chance, but so should we in this House have the chance, and the British public at large should know whether such people are freely entering Britain.

The risk in the lack of transparency in this area is that people may start to suspect that the discretionary powers are not being exercised properly, robustly or consistently, and that expediency is trumping principle. That is the fear that is starting to grow up around the issue. I call on the Minister today to answer my specific questions about the individuals in the context of the Magnitsky case and the Ukrainian case, and to look at changing the Government’s position on visa bans, and perhaps go further than the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendation. The current position must be dragged into the 21st century. The names of those excluded from this country on policy grounds should be made public, in the same way that measures are made public when we extradite or deport someone. If we have good reason to bar someone from entering Britain, we should say so loud and clear, not in some half-hearted whisper lest we cause offence. The Government should have the courage of their conviction, and the public should be reassured that torturers, mafia bosses and the henchmen of dictators like Vladimir Putin are not simply waltzing in and out of Britain, despite pious statements of official policy.

16:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing a debate on this subject. I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Security and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is currently in the main Chamber and therefore unable to be here for this debate, but I am sure he and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton will have many opportunities to catch up on this topic.

As the Home Secretary has previously made clear, where credible evidence exists, the immigration rules allow us to deny entry to those whose presence in this country is not considered conducive to the public good. The power to deny a person the ability to enter the UK is an important tool that has the potential to support key Government objectives across a range of matters including national security, terrorism, criminality, war crimes and human rights abuses.

The Home Secretary may also personally decide to exclude an individual who is not a British citizen. Individuals can be excluded on grounds of national security; on the grounds that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good; or under the unacceptable behaviours or extremism exclusion policy. Exclusion is not targeted against any religious group or proponents of any individual political position. Individuals excluded have included serious criminals, far-right extremists, homophobic extremists, and Christian, Jewish and Islamic extremists.

Exclusion powers are taken very seriously and we do not use them lightly. No decision to exclude is taken lightly or as a method of stopping debate on the issues. There is close partnership working across Government to identify those who should be excluded from the UK and to prevent them from travelling here. The Secretary of State will use those powers when justified, based on all the available evidence. In all matters, the Secretary of State must act reasonably, proportionately and consistently.

Where an individual not already subject to exclusion seeks entry to the UK either through applying for a visa from abroad or on arrival at the UK border, we have the power to refuse those individuals entry on non-conducive grounds. We do not routinely publish the names of individuals who are prevented from entering the UK. The Home Secretary and her officials use such powers to protect national security, to prevent extremists and terrorists from coming to the UK, and to disrupt the activities of serious criminals. When those powers are exercised, public disclosure of the names of the individuals concerned does not always assist in achieving those aims.

It is important that we use those powers to achieve the best results in protecting the UK and the British public. That is most often achieved without the glare of publicity, particularly when we are seeking to cause a change in behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton will appreciate that once it has been made public that a person has been banned from or refused entry to the UK—and so their reputation has been affected—they have less to gain by moderating their behaviour.

Furthermore, the Home Office has a duty of confidentiality, and the details of individual immigration cases will not routinely be made public. Where it is considered that there is a strong public interest in doing so, which clearly outweighs our duty to individuals, and there is sufficient information to confirm individual identity, the Home Office will disclose names. In exceptional circumstances, we occasionally confirm that an individual has been denied entry to the UK when the information is already in the public domain or there is a legitimate public interest in doing so, but it is certainly not routine or regular.

Having considered carefully the previous Government’s policy of releasing the names of individuals who had been excluded from the UK, we decided that that was the wrong approach. We concluded that that policy simply invited costly and long-running litigation where it could have been avoided. It is therefore our firm view that the current approach is right and that the details of those banned from this country should be made public only when there is a clear public interest in doing so or where the individual concerned has put the information in the public domain.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, that is a long-standing position that successive Governments have adopted. I quite understand that there is a view that disclosing the details of those who have been banned from this country, or refused entry, will reassure both the House and the wider public that steps are being taken to deny the most undesirable people access to this country. However, for the reasons I have just explained, that is not always in the UK’s best interest.

My hon. Friend raised the matter of Sergei Magnitsky. The circumstances surrounding his death—a human rights case—are of utmost concern. It is the most high-profile example of the failings of Russia’s judicial and prison systems. The Government recognise that four years after Mr Magnitsky’s death, there has been a lack of meaningful progress towards securing justice.

The power to prevent a person from entering the UK on non-conducive grounds is wide-ranging, but it can be and is used in cases where an individual has been involved in human rights abuses. Coming to the UK is a privilege, not a right. Although we do not routinely comment on individual cases, the presumption is that those who have committed human rights abuses will normally be refused entry to the UK. However, we cannot simply refuse an individual without objective, reliable, independent evidence of their personal involvement in human rights abuses or other serious crimes. We do not prejudge evidence speculatively, but when an application to come to the UK is made, it is considered on its merits, taking into account all circumstances at the point of application. It is not a straightforward issue, and as a Government we must adopt an approach that best supports our objectives while complying with our legal obligations. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the overriding consideration must be to use our powers lawfully and effectively, and to achieve the best results in protecting the UK and the British public.

It is right that Ministers consider whether making details public can support our aims. That is one of the tools that can be used to increase the effectiveness of the ban, but it can be done only on a case by case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances. It would of course reflect the impact on the individual concerned and the wider policy aim, as well as the impact on wider Government objectives.

[Mr Raab]

The Minister is setting out the Government’s position with a degree of clarity that I have not previously heard. She talks about the considerations when the Government decide whether to make public the name of someone who has been banned, including whether doing so might deter or correct that behaviour. If we are dealing with people who are complicit in torture and there is enough evidence to substantiate and justify a visa ban, what possible countervailing reason can there be, whether it is to change their behaviour or otherwise, for not making their name public? Would not making their name public deter others?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a coherent argument. The point, however, is that a decision to make someone’s name public will depend on individual circumstances. A blanket approach would be wrong, because decisions will depend on each case’s individual circumstances and evidence. We must consider such decisions on a case by case basis, rather than having an overriding one-size-fits-all approach to all cases involving, for example, torture. That leads me to his specific points. He is, as always, persistent and tenacious in his arguments, but I am sure he understands that I cannot comment on the individual cases that he listed.

The UK fully implements a range of travel bans agreed by both the United Nations and the European Union. The bans target certain individuals, such as those associated with the Syrian regime, the situation in Ukraine or terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We consider the bans to be an effective tool both to disrupt the activities of certain individuals and to send a clear signal that the international community does not accept those activities.

The Home Secretary has the power specifically to prevent individuals from entering the UK so that the Government can protect the UK’s interests and security without disrupting travel more widely. Sanctions are internationally agreed where there is a collective decision to take action against certain individuals. By their nature, therefore, sanctions must be shared across a range of authorities and organisations. The UK has a duty of confidentiality, which means that we do not routinely disclose information about the immigration status of individuals. Additionally, we believe our objectives are often best delivered by working with others away from the glare of publicity.

The promotion and protection of human rights continues to be a key priority in our foreign policy. Human rights form a key element of the Government’s engagement with our international partners. Denying entry to the UK and, where appropriate, preventing travel to the UK has the potential to influence behaviour. We will continue to use immigration powers to achieve that end.

In conclusion, the Government make no apology for refusing access to the UK if we believe someone’s presence is not conducive to the public good. Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who seek to subvert our shared values.

Question put and agreed to.

17:02

Sitting adjourned.