Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.