Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord German and Lord Sharpe of Epsom

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

On first sight, this would appear to be straightforward legislation and would obviously merit support. But, on closer reading and on listening to the Minister, there are three areas of interest that I would like to question him about. One of them has come about as a result of his introduction, so we can clarify that in a moment.

My first set of questions surround the issue of juxtaposition in Calais. We as a country are going to introduce our own entry system. I hesitate to ask when it is likely to be brought in but, in a similar manner that the one for the Schengen area has been slightly delayed, I suspect that we may not be very far apart in what the two countries are doing. The first question is: is an equal juxtaposition going to occur in Calais and will that be only at the ferry terminal? The other question is: is there anywhere else in the United Kingdom where there is a juxtaposition? There are clear examples of working at both ends of a ferry terminal. I can tell noble Lords of my personal experience of Ouistreham. The French inspected all the vehicles, including my own, and then, when we got to Portsmouth, the British inspected the same vehicles for the same purpose. There was obviously wasted energy there because one inspection would have done on behalf of both within the secure zones. Is the ferry terminal the only place where there is juxtaposition? If there are others, will there be an equivalent need for this legislation? Perhaps in answering that query, the noble Lord may say when the British are going to have their own scheme and whether they are likely to happen fairly close together in time for their introduction? We will need a similar facility at Calais.

My second concern relates to the circulation area. Having read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum closely, it would appear to me that the circulation area is a link between the facilities at both ends, the western docks and the eastern docks. Anybody who has been to Dover will know that the connection between those docks is either a road, an esplanade with beautiful gardens and a walking facility and bicycle path alongside, or a beach.

I presume that the intention, although it is not mentioned in the information, is that the PAF officers will move between the two by vehicle. If that is not the case—the Minister indicated that there would be a map—I hesitate to think that we would have armed French officials walking along the beach together with tourists who would be using the same facility. I therefore presume it must be by vehicle, but if it is not, I cannot understand how that connection could take place without some other form of assistance. That question has to be answered, because if we are calling it a circulation area, something must be done about the road, the bike path, the esplanade or the beach to designate it. Perhaps the Minister might tell Sue, who has a seafood operation on that esplanade, which is well used.

My third set of questions relates to the separation between the eastern and western docks. As I understand it, the Minister said that all coach transport will first call at the western docks, where people will be asked to get off and go through the required inspection checks, then people will get back on the coach and it will proceed along the esplanade to the eastern docks. Part of the problem is that, as those of us who have used this route know, if you come via Canterbury, the entrance to the eastern docks is via a dual carriageway which comes down into them. That means that coaches using that route would have to travel along the seafront to the western docks, be processed, turn around and come back again. Even without the entry system, much traffic builds up along that route along the seafront in Dover to the eastern docks, so there must be traffic implications somewhere in this.

Nowhere in the documentation before us does it mention that this is for coaches only, so presumably this legislation can be used for any passenger in any vehicle travelling to France on the Dover/Calais route. Since the legislation does not exclude cars, minibuses or foot passengers, there is nothing to say that that cannot be achieved. It would make more sense to use it just for coach travel, even though that will have some implications for local roads. However, since it is not mentioned in the legislation, this legislation could be used for foot and car passengers, which would be a nightmare. Whatever route you are taking into Dover, having to travel back and forth across the area would create an incredible build-up of traffic and passengers on that stretch of road.

Once people have been through the initial Schengen checks, they will carry with them some form of statement, agreement or whatever, or they can simply turn up at the eastern docks and say, “I have already got the biometric Schengen agreement”. That means that some people will be allowed entry into the eastern docks on their own and some people, perhaps even two of them sharing a car, will have to zigzag back and forward if one has and one has not. The legislation is not clear about precisely what will happen when people have the Schengen documentation available and what happens if they are in a mixed vehicle when one might have it and one might not.

This all predisposes that the legislation does not talk just about coaches. If it is to be coaches, I suggest that it should be amended to be clear that this does not apply to every passenger going through Dover.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome this order. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations, which was helpful. Perhaps I can help him by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German, that, when I was in the Home Office, the rollout of the ETAs to which he referred was very much on track and was highly efficient—I am sure it still is.

My party does not have quite the same forensic interest in the geography of Dover as the noble Lord, Lord German, and it is content that the regulations will deliver what is expected of them. But I do have a couple of brief questions. According to the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Is there a particular reason for that, or a perfectly innocent explanation? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in the Room, I should say that I am asking this mostly because he used to ask me for impact assessments regularly when I was standing in his place.

I appreciate the detailed description of the powers of the PAF officers, but I did not hear the circumstances in which the use of firearms would be permitted. What are the restrictions, if any, on those officers? It may be that I just did not hear that.

Are arrangements in place to allow the employees of other foreign agencies to carry firearms when working in the United Kingdom? More generally, is this a reserved or a devolved matter?

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord German and Lord Sharpe of Epsom

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin, I declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP project. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for raising this important issue, which will set the agenda for the new Government as they move forward. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I say that we support the timely and accurate processing of asylum cases as well as swift and humane removal for those who do not meet the criteria for protection. To do that, we should front-load the asylum application process with decision-making expertise and legal aid provisions so that accurate decisions are made without the need for many appeals.

I will address the issue of legal versus illegal—we have had this discussion in the Chamber already. The thing you have to tell yourself is: you do not know whether people are fleeing persecution, torture or other things in the treaties, whether or not they are legal asylum seekers. That is why any asylum seeker is a legal, not an illegal, person. We do not know how many of the 52 people who have died in the channel in the past year would have made a justifiable claim for protection in this country and, therefore, would have been legal by definition. We must be very careful, when we use these words, that we do not misuse them. Certainly, with the way in which the legislation is being altered, that becomes the case even more.

The key aim of the original 2016 regulations, amendments to which we are discussing today, was to improve protection for particularly vulnerable people in detention. However, the changes that we are debating are of the previous Government. The present Government will make changes to this legislation, I hope, now that they have got control of matters. That is the first and most important thing we need to hear from the Minister today.

This is particularly relevant given that the regulations before us had an inadequate consultation exercise: it lasted only five weeks when, normally, at least 10 would be expected—there was also no equality impact assessment—and this was published before the Government responded to the Brook House inquiry. In the absence of the SLSC’s chair making a contribution, I wonder whether he would mind me quoting one of the conclusions that the committee reached. As I understand it, it said that the Home Office agrees that it will “logically follow” that these changes will mean

“detaining more of those considered vulnerable, despite a ‘presumption against’ such detention”.

The Minister will, I am sure, be able to confirm what the SLSC report states.

The inference from the current regulations is that people who were not really vulnerable were getting released, and that that is the reason why these regulations were put in place. They also bring into force changes to the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, which sets out the process for making decisions on immigration detention where an individual may be vulnerable to harm if detained. So, the question to be addressed today is: will the changes weaken the protective purpose of the “adults at risk” policy and risk exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention? If so, will this Government make the necessary changes in order to decrease the damage being done by these regulations?

The submission that we received from Medical Justice states that the changes weaken:

“the protective purpose of the Adults At Risk policy and risks exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention”.

It quotes, by way of example, the change in the wording from a

“clear presumption … that detention will not be appropriate if a person is considered to be ‘at risk’”

to a “general presumption of liberty” that

“is strengthened for those considered vulnerable under this guidance”.

Those are two crucial sentences, but clearly one is stronger than the other. The key concern in that submission was whether the overall increase in the number of people detained will also lead to a greater number of vulnerable people being detained, with the possible adverse effects that detention might have on these people.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, both talked about the second opinion issue of getting a second MLR. The Home Office provided data to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is worth looking at that data: over a period of approximately 19 months, 199 MLRs were received for migrants in detention, of which 47 were referred for a second opinion report. Of those, 30 second opinion reports were received. As a result of those 30 reports, 14 cases were released and 16 remained in detention, although all but two of those 16 were later released following a further review. In total, therefore, 28 of the 30 cases with a second opinion still resulted in a release. Do the Government agree with the SLSC report that this data does not provide compelling evidence, as outlined by the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her opening? What steps will the Government take to closely monitor its effects, particularly the number of release and detention decisions that are changed because of the second opinion, and the impact on those whose detention is extended to obtain a second opinion? Crucially, will these results be published?

The Brook House inquiry has already been raised by a number of noble Lords in this debate. That substantial report—three volumes—exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention by the Home Office. It was not a case of a few bad apples but systemic failure. The inquiry made, as we heard, 33 recommendations, of which only one has been taken up in full. Adopting those recommendations is the only meaningful way of ensuring that the mistreatment and abuse, including the breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, do not happen again.

Supplemented by that, we now have the report by the independent monitoring board on the Gatwick PDA. It is worth while reading this into the record here today. That report says, in its recommendations to the Minister, that:

“Given the evident suffering and distress for parents involved and the unknown impact of the experience on their children, the PDA should be closed”.


There are, then, plenty of examples of where everything is not in fact happening in a good state. It is important that the fundamental mistake of reducing detention safeguards without properly considering the implications of a public inquiry is acknowledged, and that the public inquiry is considered as a route to making sure that we change more for the future.

I want to address some questions to the Minister because this is our first opportunity to ask the new Government about these matters. I do not necessarily expect an answer to all of them today, but I ask that the Minister writes to me if this becomes too tricky.

If the aim is to facilitate more removals of people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom, which must be the case from the evidence we have just been talking about from the SLSC and the facts provided to us, what assessment has there been to establish what barriers there are to increasing the numbers of people removed from the UK, who after due process do not qualify for leave to remain? What are the barriers that the Government see are still in place?

What impact have the recommendations and learning from the Brook House inquiry had on the proposed government review? Will those things be part of the terms of reference for that inquiry and review? It would be very helpful to know whether a timescale can be provided for that review so that we can judge the speed with which the Government are going to move on this process.

What progress has been made by the cross-governmental working group that was established to monitor progress against the Brook House inquiry recommendations and to drive forward implementation? Can we have more details about this group and its work?

Given the findings of failings of detention, will the Minister commit to re-engaging with the alternatives to detention that were piloted by the Government between 2019 and 2022? Finally, what evaluation and monitoring report is in place for this policy change that we are seeing before us today? If it is not in place now, when will it be in place?

The standards by which we treat people in our society should be constant; whoever they are, human rights are human rights. However, the processes are set out in guidance by the Home Office, and the evidence is that they are not happening. The Brook House inquiry shows that processes by which vulnerabilities are identified and acted upon are not working. Where we are removing someone’s liberty, protections have to be significant. On current evidence, that balance has not been struck, and the treatment and safeguards for everyone in detention, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, are just not sufficient.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on proceeding with these regulations, although I of course acknowledge that like all regulations, they should be kept under constant review.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen that illegal channel crossings are at their highest level in more than two years. We need to secure our borders, and I once again welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that we protect our national interests on this matter.

I note that during this short debate, there have been some comments about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I commend my noble friend’s report on this subject. I point out that paragraph 12 of that report states that,

“the Home Office reiterated that ‘the right to liberty remains a fundamental principle which underpins all of our detention policy. In all cases the presumption is against detention’. However, the Home Office went on to say that ‘there may be circumstances where it is necessary to detain an individual in order to maintain effective immigration control’”.

Underpinning this debate, we should bear in mind that key line that the presumption is against detention. My remarks, therefore, will be for the benefit of—I hope—reassuring noble Lords who have expressed certain concerns about the regulations.

Moving on to medical second opinions, this statutory instrument will reinstate the ability to seek second medical opinions in relation to the detention of potentially vulnerable migrants. I welcome this and congratulate the Government on putting clinical best practices first. Medical Justice, the organisation that advocates for the legal rights of people in immigration detention, has opposed this in written evidence to the House. It states that a,

“second opinion on professional evidence risks prolonging the detention of vulnerable people and putting them through a potentially re-traumatising process”.

However, a second medical opinion is an entirely standard and well-established practice in the treatment of vulnerable persons. I refer noble Lords to the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:

“An application for admission”


to a mental health facility must,

“be founded on the written recommendations in the prescribed form of two registered medical practitioners”.

Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should be reassured that a second medical opinion is a commonplace, uncontroversial and clinically accepted principle in the medical profession, and not to have it as an option would increase the likelihood of vexatious claims. To put a slightly different spin on the statistics cited by the noble Lord, Lord German, this is just an option; it does not have to be followed in all cases, and nor has it been up to now. These regulations also directly address the High Court’s decision of January 2024. That decision was not about the principle of second opinions but the fact that the previous regulations in effect authorised caseworkers to act contrary to the statutory guidance. These regulations correct that. Does the Minister agree that we should strive for medical best practice in the Home Office and reject this submission on second opinions? Does he agree that we should not in effect have a two-tier system that differentiates between vulnerable citizens and illegal migrants or asylum seekers?