Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Baroness O'Loan

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

I welcome the government amendments. In my clumsy way, I tried to deal with the issues raised by the independent reviewer about his remit and the new board at the last stage. The Minister referred to two of the five issues that the independent reviewer sought to cover, which I tried to cover at that last stage. I am flattered that he suggested that my Amendment 16A comes from my own interest and concerns about the Justice and Security Act and the disclosure of sensitive material, closed material proceedings, special advocates and all the rest of it, as well as my concerns about immigration and nationality law. I indeed have those concerns but I cannot say that this is a self-started amendment. I was asked to pursue the subject. The independent reviewer has made clear that he wants this. He does not seek to go beyond the counterterrorism area. I hope that the amendment is clear on that. His blog has already been quoted and I shall quote from it too. He wrote:

“It is however a shame that the Reviewer was not also given the opportunity to review the operation of other powers, including immigration powers, to the extent that they are used for counter-terrorism purposes. I have no evidence whatsoever that any of those powers is used in an improper manner. But in such a sensitive and secret area, it is as well to have the assurance that only independent review can provide”.

He continues by quoting from his report of last July, which said:

“More than one person of a suspicious cast of mind has suggested to me that the unreviewed powers (for example, the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw passport facilities) are likely to be used for the purposes of doing the Government’s ‘dirty work’”.

I suggest my amendment because the independent reviewer has a holistic approach to this whole area. Individual case oversight and different reviewers, to which my noble friend has referred, while reassuring, do not meet the points that the reviewer has in his mind. He clearly looks at how the whole of counterterrorism legislation is operating and has ranged beyond the relatively narrow legislative remit that he has had in the past. Previously, I have heard him say that he is not seeking a turf war with other reviewers but, equally, he does not see these things in silos, which is why this amendment has come forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment derives from the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in scrutinising the Bill. We took evidence from a number of people, including the independent reviewer. It was his recommendation about the major gaps in his function which should be filled which led to the creation of this amendment. I did not put my name to it to lead it because, in my innocence, I thought that there was a possibility that we might get to it earlier in the evening when I would be engaged in a committee. I have much to learn about your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, rightly says, the independent reviewer had identified these major gaps. The Government have also accepted and recognised those gaps. I think that the independent reviewer has been looking at the whole architecture of counterterrorist legislation and has tried to ensure that there is—I do not like to use the word holistic—a complete, effective and standard-based approach to the review, which I do not think is provided by individual case-by-case judicial proceedings.

The opportunity here is simple and it would not add a great deal to the work of the independent reviewer were the Government to consider again this amendment. As the Minister has said, the office of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is very highly respected in the country. I have worked very closely with some of the predecessors of David Anderson QC and I know how very significant that work is.

We are just asking for two issues to be moved into the remit of the independent reviewer under this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, the first concerns Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, which deals with closed material procedures. Those procedures apply in litigation, which very often is litigation that is seeking compensation in claims against the Government and other authorities, and where there is a problem that there is material the disclosure of which will be damaging to the interests of national security.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Baroness O'Loan

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke on the first day in Committee but was unable to attend on the day this clause was discussed, as I was recovering from surgery. Nevertheless, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have put my name to these amendments because it is profoundly important that the Bill which comes to be enacted following your Lordships’ deliberations takes into account the issues which arise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, this would most effectively be done through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

The outstanding issues have been graphically illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I will refer very briefly to them. The Government have so far declined to provide any indication of the number of people whose citizenship was taken away from them while they were abroad, on the basis that they are all cases in which the information on which the Secretary of State relied was information which should not be made public. The Government say that they are “unable” to put the numbers into the public domain,

“for reasons of national security and operational effectiveness”.

However, I do not believe that the release of this number, or of many other numbers, will in any way impact on national security.

The Government also indicated in their response that it is anticipated that the new power will usually, and possibly always, be exercised on the basis of closed material. As noble Lords will recall, this is not a procedure which has commended itself to many and is one which carries with it the risk of unfairness. The Joint Committee remains concerned that exercising the power,

“in relation to naturalised British citizens while they are abroad … carries a very great risk of breaching the UK’s international obligations to the State who admitted the British citizen to its territory”.

The first two amendments to which I put my name, Amendments 56ZA and 56ZB, therefore seek to ensure United Kingdom compliance with our international obligations and to ensure the adequacy of the safeguards against arbitrariness in decision-making by requiring that, if it is to be done,

“the deprivation of citizenship is a necessary and proportionate response to such conduct”.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights does not accept the Government’s argument that the clause is compatible with its international obligations to countries that have admitted British citizens whose citizenship is subsequently removed.

The Government assert that out-of-country deprivations of citizenship do not engage the European Convention on Human Rights because it does not apply extraterritorially other than in exceptional circumstances. However, the case which they propose as an authority for this view is by no means an authority for the broad proposition that the ECHR is not engaged by an out-of-country deprivation of citizenship that leaves an individual stateless, as the case itself did not concern a deprivation which left the individuals concerned stateless. Moreover, there have been cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. I point your Lordships to the East African Asians case, in which the UK was found to have breached the right not to be subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment” in Article 3 of the ECHR when it removed the right of abode in the UK from British citizens. Were Parliament to enact Clause 60 as drafted, it would be the first measure adopted by the UK in recent years that gave rise directly to an increase in the number of stateless people in the world.

Amendment 56ZC is about retrospectivity. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already made the point that, under current law, a naturalised British citizen who does not also have another nationality is not liable to being deprived of their citizenship. Yet that is what the Government assert. The law says that they cannot be made stateless by deprivation of UK citizenship which has been conferred. The amendment seeks only to ensure that a person could not lose their citizenship as a consequence of actions which they were unaware could result in such loss, particularly since the information and intelligence which will lead to the decision-making will, in most cases, be withheld from them through the closed procedure.

The final amendment is about children. The Government do not consider an amendment such as this necessary to ensure that the best interests of any children affected are treated as a primary consideration. The Government cite the “children duty” in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 as applying already to the Secretary of State’s decision-making in respect of deprivation decisions. However, as the noble Baroness has already said, the Section 55 duty applies only to children who are in the United Kingdom. It does not apply if the children affected, who may be British citizens, are abroad at the time, as they very well might be when the power is being exercised in relation to an individual who is abroad at the time of deprivation. Amendment 56ZD is very simple. It seeks to extend the duty in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act to children who are outside the UK at the time when the Secretary of State makes the decision affecting them. Can the Minister explain how else such children could be protected?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendments 57A and 57B in this group and share the concerns that have been expressed about the substance and transparency of the new clause and what the point of it is. In Committee, I asked that question rhetorically. I now ask—I hope it is not a rhetorical question—why we should not use a TPIM, as we have that legislation on the statute book. The conduct of the individuals concerned seems to fall into the same area, and this indeed raises the same issue—that the individual has not been prosecuted. If TPIMs are not to be used, it is bound to raise the suspicion that the power will mainly be exercised when an individual is out of the country.

The charitably funded Bureau of Investigative Journalism has identified 17 cases, mainly through FoI and court records, in 15 of which the individual was overseas at the time of the deprivation under the provisions as we now have them. If these individuals are regarded as such a high risk, I think we can assume that, having lost their status, they would be subject to close surveillance, certainly if they are in this country. If they are overseas, that might raise even wider matters.

I understand from officials—I thank them as well as the Minister—that if an individual, having been made stateless through this procedure, is in the UK, he will have limited leave to remain. I was referred to the relevant Immigration Rules. Under paragraphs 404 and 406, a person who is,

“a danger to the security or public order of the United Kingdom”,

will be refused leave to remain. Can the Minister tell noble Lords whether that person is then disqualified from leave to remain and what happens to him?

I understand from the old UKBA casework instruction on restricted leave that that will apply, and that restrictions and conditions can be imposed, including a residence restriction. Noble Lords will recall concerns about residence restrictions under the old control order regime. One of the concerns about those restrictions was the impact on the family of the individual subject of an order. Can the Minister explain what will happen to the family of an individual if, on the one hand, he is in this country and if, on the other, he is abroad? Does the family qualify for leave to remain in the circumstances of the individual being a danger to security or public order, as I have quoted? I mention all this because the impact on families was a concern about control orders, TPIMs and terrorist asset-freezing. Reporting on that has been a component in reviews, which we have seen, by successive independent reviewers.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism mentioned to me two examples of the impact on families. One was of a Sudanese-born man who lost his citizenship. The bureau told me that a Home Office official said in evidence in court that the Government waited until he was overseas before removing it. He had taken his wife and four children to Sudan for the summer. That left the children effectively exiled as well. The other example was of a British-born man whose youngest son was born here and who remains a British citizen. He has developmental disorders and is dependent on both his parents. His mother wishes to return to the UK for treatment for the son but she cannot do so without her husband. One does not want to be too hearts and flowers about this. The issue that we are being asked to consider is a tough one, but I think that the issue goes wider than just the individuals involved. I asked the Minister whether individuals and a family might be left without resources and so left destitute. Can he share with the House the Government’s position on that, particularly if the deprivation has been made while the individual is abroad?

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Baroness O'Loan

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 4. The group includes Amendments 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as well. This is a point at which I feel I should be instigating some sort of cabaret to retain your Lordships. Maybe a tea dance would be more appropriate for this company; I do not know.

Clause 1 provides for a new section to go into the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act for the removal of persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom. It replaces the current Section 10 of that Act, which is headed, “Removal of certain persons”. That change is significant, and the new section would certainly give rather broader powers. Amendment 1, my first amendment, would require the Secretary of State to give notice of the removal, which should be in writing and give the date and time of the removal. At this stage, at any rate, I have referred to this as the “approximate” time in order to anticipate, and therefore not waste time on, an argument that a plane might be delayed. Talking about time without qualifying it was therefore inappropriate—that is not of course the point of this.

Amendment 4 is about notice to a family member, which new Section 10(6)(c) in effect makes optional. New Section 10 gives powers to remove the individual and family members who are not defined. None of the amendments in this group is about not removing persons who are unlawfully here, which is a different argument, but about who is to be removed and how. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed concerns about the provisions not being in the Bill. We have of course already seen draft regulations. They are in the pack that my noble friend has arranged for noble Lords to see, which contains a whole group of statements of intent, regulations, codes, statements of fact and so on. I thank him for that. I forgot to take it home with me on Friday but I read it, or the right bits, before tabling these amendments.

The Delegated Powers Committee found it,

“difficult to understand why operational experience should have any effect on who is to be treated as a family member”,

and recommended that the definition in the draft regulations be placed in the Bill. That seems to be an appropriate provision. Draft Regulation 4 requires notice to be given to a family member facing removal, which reflects what is currently in the 1999 Act, but the Bill provides only that regulations “may” provide for that notice. I hope that the Minister can explain to the Committee why this should not be a requirement. It seems an absolutely fundamental point and other noble Lords will have seen briefing to the effect that it has been made by the judiciary as well.

There is also a draft regulation providing that the giving of notice invalidates any leave to enter or remain, in the case of the family member previously held, that is currently in Section 10(8). Again, why should safeguards currently in primary legislation not be included in the Bill?

There are always provisions about service of notices in the draft regulations, although I do not know whether they are usual. It may not be a point for debate in Committee today but I could not help noticing that the draft regulations provide for recorded delivery of the notice that requires signing for, but there is deemed service. There must be a risk, for instance, that someone else in the house will sign for receipt of notice of something that is crucial to the person who may not actually receive it. There are deemed service provisions elsewhere in the regulations.

Less technically perhaps, there are directions for removal ceasing to have effect if the family member ceases to belong to the family. Again, that is a current provision and it would be absolutely appropriate for it to be in the legislation. In the Commons Committee, the Minister gave a number of assurances. Of course I accept them, but Governments change, as sometimes do regulations as well.

I cannot recall if the sword of Damocles fell at the end of the tale, but I am concerned about how long it may hang—perhaps for a very long time—and whether it may hang at all over a family member who has a right to leave, enter or remain in the country in his or her own right. This group extends further than these two amendments. Although we may appear to be starting the Bill almost half way through the journey—in the philosophical as well as the practical sense—that someone seeking to enter or remain in our country will make, these are very important issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7 in my name, and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. These amendments were recommended in the eighth report of that committee on the legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Following the Government’s response to the committee, it produced a further legislative scrutiny report and again recommended these amendments.

The intention in Clause 1 is very simple: to simplify processes for removing people who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully and provide for removal of members of the person’s family, which provides a new Section 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The question of which member of an individual’s family can be removed following the removal or planned removal of an individual is to be decided in accordance with a number of policies. For example, a family member who has been a victim of domestic violence in accordance with the definition in the Immigration Rules will not be removed. Similarly, a member who is no longer in a family relationship will not be removed. There will undoubtedly be debate in your Lordships’ House about who can and cannot be removed under these provisions. Of course, the Government have stated that removals will be in accordance with existing immigration law and our international obligations.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Baroness O'Loan

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Can the noble Baroness explain precisely how judges are supposed to interpret a threat and a feeling of being threatened from the words “nuisance” and “annoyance”? Also the use of the word “threatened” would indicate a much higher threshold.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I would say because of the context of the Bill, the clear policy underlying it and the evidence that would have to be given. I have heard the exchange about hearsay evidence but a judge has still got to be convinced that it would be just and convenient, and therefore proportionate, as I understand it, to grant an injunction.