The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Mr Philip Hollobone
† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)
† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
† Burns, Conor (Bournemouth West) (Con)
† Dines, Miss Sarah (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Dixon, Samantha (City of Chester) (Lab)
Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
† Elmore, Chris (Ogmore) (Lab)
† Kawczynski, Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
† Kniveton, Kate (Burton) (Con)
Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)
† Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)
† Maynard, Paul (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
† Offord, Dr Matthew (Hendon) (Con)
Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)
† Smyth, Karin (Bristol South) (Lab)
Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab)
, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 12 December 2022
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
00:01
Sarah Dines Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The statutory instrument amends existing regulations relating to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned for immigration purposes under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—the sanctions Act, as I shall now refer to it. I will start by setting out some background to the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.

The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the UN Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with the UK. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status: subject to the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention, they cannot enter or remain here. The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered, and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal.

Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the immigration rules, they benefit from similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore in the perverse situation in which someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protection than someone who is not.

The purpose of these regulations is to align the approach and correct the anomaly. The Government have considered how to address it and have concluded that it is right that people lawfully in the UK when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered. However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. The regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system, and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

The debate can last until 6 pm. I call Holly Lynch.

16:33
Holly Lynch Portrait Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I do not think we will be detaining the Committee quite that long.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the regulations’ purpose, which is to correct what might best be described as a glitch in the operation of immigration sanctions or travel bans in respect of individuals based within the UK. The Home Office has identified that discrepancy, which has led to the entirely perverse situation in which people subject to a travel ban have more rights than those who are awaiting a decision on a human rights or protection claim and are not subject to sanctions.

The roots of the issue date back to the passage of the 2018 Act and regulations under that Act that were made in 2020, so it took the Government quite some time to become aware of the problem, which begs the question how and why the discrepancy first came to Ministers’ attention. The Government point out that in most cases, people subject to travel bans are not in the UK and do not have any significant connection to the UK. The number of people likely to be affected by these regulations is therefore small. The intention of the regulations is to rectify the error, and the hope is that in doing so, they will also help to strengthen the operation of UK sanctions regimes in the future. I am sure we can all support that. On that basis, the Opposition support this statutory instrument.

16:34
Sarah Dines Portrait Miss Dines
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to have had this considered—albeit rather short—debate. I am also grateful for the Opposition’s support.

There might have been some delay, but the immigration rules are complex and it is right to make sure that everything is looked into appropriately. Travel bans are used to restrict the movements of those whose behaviour is considered unacceptable by the international community; those who are associated with regimes that threaten the sovereignty or independence of neighbouring countries; those who would seek to do us harm; those who seek to shelter themselves or their ill-gotten gains in other countries; and those whose aim is to profit from human suffering.

The UK does not ignore its international obligations. Those subject to a travel ban who claim a real fear of persecution or a breach of their fundamental human rights have the opportunity to make a claim before we take action to remove them from the UK. They have a statutory right to appeal against a decision to refuse their claim, and if the appeal succeeds the travel ban does not apply, meaning that they will not be removed or required to leave. But it cannot be right that when sanctions are be imposed on someone, they can then come and go as they please, abusing our hospitality. Should they choose to leave the UK without resolution of their original claim, they should not find themselves in a more generous position than others.

As I set out, the regulations simply provide consistency while maintaining the effectiveness of the sanctions regime and complying with our international obligations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

16:36
Committee rose.