Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to oppose Clause 9; I have added my name to both. I also lend my support to all other amendments in this group. We should support anything that allows us to think again, row back and reset in an area that has developed in ways that we could not have envisaged, and take any opportunity to put it right.

The consequences of Clause 9 are, once again, incremental changes but with far-reaching consequences. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments I made at Second Reading on the history of the state’s power to strip UK citizens of their citizenship. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for comprehensively and clearly stating the history of this issue, the background, the policy, the changes and its impact.

Each change has been sold by successive Governments as small, incremental, narrow and necessary. But each change has widened further the net of who, how and why the state can strip our fellow countrymen and women of their right. Clause 9 removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to notify someone when they are being deprived of their citizenship in a broad range of loosely defined circumstances, including when it does not appear to be “reasonably practicable”. I am grateful to my noble friend for her recent correspondence, but I am afraid it provides little justification for this change, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.

Today I want to make three points. The Government have stripped hundreds of citizens of their citizenship over the last decade. Indeed, as recently as 2017, we heard that over 100 people were stripped of it in one year alone. The requirement for notice was, of course, fulfilled in all those cases. The lack of a Clause 9 power did not prevent the Government acting in hundreds of cases. The case of D4, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, was what led to this clause at the 11th hour, with little debate in the Commons. To help the Committee understand the rationale behind this clause, can my noble friend start by publishing in a single document the numbers of people deprived, the reasons for the deprivation and the ethnicities of those deprived from, say, 1981 to 2010 and 2010 to date?

Secondly, I want to talk about stripping someone of their citizenship. It strips them of their right to live in their country and of their home, their job and their right to family. It often deprives them of the only place they know and forces them to find another place in the world that may or may not accept them—often a place with which they have little if any connection and where their life may be at risk.

Clause 9 seeks to do this without even notifying the person of such a radically life-altering decision. This in reality removes the person’s right to challenge the decision, the basis of it, the accuracy of the facts on which it was based or, indeed, even whether the person stripped is the right person. My noble friend’s explanation in her letter, I am afraid, goes no further in giving any reassurance that appeal rights will be preserved with Clause 9. As the Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill:

“The House may conclude that this clause is unacceptable and should be removed from the Bill.”


Thirdly, I want to move to a fundamental principle that we are equal before the law, entitled to equal protection and equal treatment. I think the whole Committee can agree on that. In this country, we legislate for what is a crime and publish the law, including sentencing guidelines. If we break the law, we know the consequences that will follow—and follow equally for all citizens. Yet it seems that these fundamental principles are now being eroded.

So perhaps I may ask my noble friend: if an act, a crime, carries the penalty and sentence of citizenship being stripped, should it apply to anyone convicted of that crime? Do my noble friends on the Front Bench agree that sentencing should be linked to crime, not where your grandparents or great-grandparents were born, and that a sentence should not change based on heritage or race? If my noble friends agree with that principle, they will think again and, I hope, before Report they will strike Clause 9 from the Bill, because to do anything else would mean that we further the appalling situation in which we find ourselves now in Britain that seeks to sentence predominately a minority black and brown community differently from the majority white community. Yes, that is hard to listen to, but it should disgust and disturb us in this House.

Being a citizen of this country means that, when you commit a crime, you are arrested, tried and convicted by our laws and our courts. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I accept that it is hard for him to revisit his time, but it is punishment and cannot be protection, as he says it is. If the laws, as he says, were brought in as a response to the challenge of terrorism and an international terrorist franchise, surely that required an international response. So how will dumping our citizens who have shown support for that international franchise in another country—likely with less resources—protect us? I would argue that it makes us all less safe.

Finally, this clause has had a chilling effect in our country. It has provoked debates in homes in settled, established communities such as mine and those of other noble Lords. I want to mention a very personal story. When I was growing up, there were two things I remember acutely. The first was a Hitachi case containing everyone’s papers, passports and naturalisation certificates. When anything happened in our home, for example if we moved, that Hitachi case was rescued first, because the fear was real that, without that case, we might be asked to leave.

The story that I heard from my parents was this. My dad is an optimistic guy who always thought that he would build a house in the north of Pakistan in the way that many of us dream of having a villa in the south of Spain. But my mum, like many women, was more realistic and cynical. She worried that one day we would be asked to leave and go back home. I did not envisage that here I would be at 50, not quite dreaming my dad’s dream but definitely worrying my mum’s worry.

So I say to my noble friend that opposition to this clause is widespread. Most of our inboxes are full of briefings and correspondence. The clause is broadly opposed in this Committee. Today we have seen the House at its best; across it and across political divides we have had noble Lords raising their concerns. So I hope that my noble friend will think again before Report.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say just a few words because I have listened very carefully, looked at all these amendments and heard some extremely good speeches from colleagues on all sides of the House. However, I am a former Immigration Minister and, looking back at legislation that I was involved in in the 1990s, there were certain Bills in which clauses came forward, we looked at amendments and, frankly, we concluded that, however good the amendments were, the clauses were unamendable and should be removed when they were not effective and where it had been clearly shown that they would have had bad effects.

I am grateful to those who have moved or spoken to their amendments, but I can think of few proposals that can offend as widely and as profoundly as the removal of people’s citizenship. Clause 9, sadly—to me, anyway, as a lawyer—is an affront to our common law, to international legal standards and understandings, and to our various human rights commitments. Critically, it could have appalling consequences for those affected.

As I stated at Second Reading, stripping people of their citizenship—secretly and unilaterally, on vaguely defined grounds such as “in the public interest”—exposes us to actions that fall short of our normal democratic standards, both at home and abroad. It also predicates many legal proceedings.

We all know that the first rule of government is to protect our citizens. I took that very seriously then, as I do know. Clause 9 would place already vulnerable people at greater risk. There are plenty of examples of this. A person may be deported to a country where capital punishment is practised, or where other inhumanities might present themselves. This proposal could hardly be described as protective, as it would open us up to accusations of double standards, which would undermine our efforts to speak out against issues such as the death penalty or cruel and inhumane practices elsewhere.

The UK has a very good and proud record of calling out injustice when it applies to other countries that show a lack of respect for human rights and international standards. At times—not often, but occasionally—we are also good at sporting spurious justifications to mask unsavoury policies. I fear that this clause would grant the UK the same sort of cover and ability to employ the same sorts of excuses to enforce policies that are otherwise indefensible and might be misused.

Citizenship is a valuable status and a clear constitutional right. The issue of revocation is, therefore, to be taken seriously. Any attempt by the state to withdraw an individual’s citizenship must have a clear and robust basis in law. It must assert the primacy of due process, including the right of appeal. Above all, it must be transparent, where the basic rights of notification of action to a subject are followed.

I fear that Clause 9 will create a process that is arbitrary and fundamentally unjust. That is why it should not be supported. I hope that my noble friend can rectify the situation before Report. I listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. He was quite correct; it is very difficult to see that any form of amendment could put this clause right.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, it is important to situate Clause 9 within the breadth of our immigration law as it stands. For obvious reasons, deprivation powers available to a Secretary of State to strip a person of their British citizenship were historically very tightly drawn indeed. In 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018, these powers were significantly expanded. They may now be exercised in relation to any British citizen who is a dual national—including British citizens from birth—where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.

If we want to grasp how broad a power that is and how broad are its implications, we need only recall what the Supreme Court said in the Begum case last year—that this includes a situation where the person does not even know that they are a dual national and where they have little or no connection with the country of their second nationality.

The power can also be exercised in relation to naturalised British citizens even where they are not dual nationals if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conducive to the public good test is passed because the person has acted in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. If the Secretary of State has a reasonable belief that the person is able to become a national of another country and that belief turns out to be unfounded, the individual will become stateless.

The leading immigration law silk, Raza Husain, has said:

“This progressive extension over the last two decades has meant that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist or a traitor before stripping them of British citizenship. Individuals may be deprived of citizenship on general public interest grounds of the sort usually invoked to justify deportation, rather than on the basis of their severing the bonds of allegiance that are the hallmark of nationality.”


It is no doubt because of the lowering of these procedural safeguards that the exercise of deprivation of citizenship is now relatively common. In the period from 1973 to 2002, there were no deprivation orders at all. I am told that, since 2011, the power has been used in at least 441 cases, with 104 in 2017 alone. Of course, Clause 9 has the potential very significantly to increase the use of this power. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has spoken very compellingly about the disproportionate impact that this will inevitably have on non-white British citizens.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, as a former Immigration Minister in this country, I have always been of the view that a primary responsibility of our Government should be to keep the people safe from internal and external threats. This includes maintaining our borders and dealing with immigration with policies that are firm but fair. That is certainly what we strived to achieve under my watch. That included rules that were clear and enforced without bias for immigration, including exercising the powers of removal or deportation in cases of illegality or failure under the rules. The need to improve our rates of removals is something I have always supported. But I never conflated the issues of immigration and asylum; they are wholly distinct and require different considerations. I am therefore a little surprised and disappointed that the Bill has blurred the lines between these things. It has proposed a number of controversial ideas that we need to examine carefully.

The first is Clause 28 and Schedule 3, which give the Home Office powers to send asylum applicants to offshore processing centres outside the UK. About 20 years ago, I chaired two party commissions set up to consider, in turn, the UK’s policies towards asylum and immigration. One of our asylum proposals was to consider applications in an offshore location, isolated from the mainland. I soon realised that this was a highly defective idea and it caused much unnecessary concern to certain islanders around our shores, but at least it did not suggest moving people outside of our territorial jurisdiction. These new proposals do, and in my opinion would be a clear breach of the principles of the 1951 convention on refugees, as well as providing substantial legal concerns as to the responsibility for dealing with applications. An asylum application is under the control of an applicant. Until and unless an application is made there is no status of asylum seeker, and the applicant can decide where to make their application. Therefore, deporting an applicant to another state and jurisdiction and asking them to determine the case for us is an abrogation of our responsibilities and an abuse of the applicant’s rights.

Who would agree to this without themselves breaking the rules? Not the Albanians, not the Norwegians and surely not the Rwandans. The Australians tried a similar idea, referred to by a number of noble Lords, and it was a total failure. Surely it is a totally unacceptable process for us and one where we would end up with different legal and human rights standards. It would be a nightmare and simply would not work.

My second concern relates to Clause 9, which would allow the Home Office to strip people of UK citizenship unilaterally, secretly and without right of appeal. That would be an appalling prospect and is against all our legal and constitutional principles, when notification to an individual of their rights and decisions taken about them is inherent in both our criminal and our civil law. The Bill term “public interest” is similar to that used to justify such an approach in some countries that would not be regarded as being as democratic and free as our own.

Finally, I return to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. I was proud to follow British values and the rule of law in our approach to those in need of humanitarian assistance. I was responsible for implementing the Bosnian refugee resettlement programme in the 1990s, which was of great credit to all those involved in its delivery. It was a good and legal route for many to escape persecution, complying with the necessary criteria as determined by UN and UK officials.

Why is this Bill attempting to create two categories of asylum seekers, and how can the arrival of an asylum seeker be determined as being either legal or illegal? As I stated earlier, there are no asylum seekers until asylum is requested, so a pre-application is difficult to define. There are legal and illegal immigrants, but this term cannot be easily transported to asylum seekers. Essentially, according to this Bill, all asylum seekers are therefore to be deemed illegal and we would not hear their claims at all. I think we are obliged to hear those claims. Of course, since we left the EU we can no longer return failed applicants to the states that are subject to the Dublin agreement, an agreement which I was partly responsible for drafting. Our international opportunities for using programmes or, as the Government suggest, legal routes have diminished.

Ultimately, we must recognise the ever-increasing prospect of people being forced to leave their countries of origin. The challenge requires an international effort through the UN or other recognised agencies, with renewed co-operation on both sides between the UK and the EU. This is not helped with these provisions, which are likely to be unenforceable and will perhaps even look a little inhumane. I call upon the Government to think again and try to make sure that the reputation of this country, which is a proud one, is something that we can continue. I am sure that, with the help of your Lordships, this Bill will be returned to the other place in a much better form and order than its current state.

UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Foreign Workers

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, TCA Article 399 only obliges the UK to implement provisions of the charter that the UK accepts. It does not prevent the UK from accepting further provisions or ratifying different versions of the charter in the future, nor does it prevent the UK from not accepting or disapplying provisions. The 1961 charter specifically allows states to disapply individual provisions of the charter and the UK may choose which provisions of the 1961 charter we accept at any given time. The TCA does not affect this position.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My noble friend is right in stating the extent of Article 399, but it is quite a wide extent, because obviously it deals with the implementation of all the ILO conventions that have been ratified, together of course with the provisions of the European Social Charter, which we have agreed to accept, as she says. Can my noble friend update us on the overall progress in a wider sense towards completing implementation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the UK Government amended the immigration fee regulations in September to give effect to the change, as my noble friend knows. As I previously explained to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, this is nothing to do with the UK-EU relationship. Our obligations on this matter relate to the implementation of the Council of Europe treaty and do not arise from the UK’s former relationship with the EU or from the TCA.

Domestic Abuse: Protection of Victims

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect victims of domestic abuse.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government provide funding to domestic abuse organisations, helplines and specialist services at national and local levels, and have introduced measures to tackle abuses such as forced marriage and FGM. We are committed to further strengthening victim protections through the Domestic Abuse Bill. We have also allocated £27 million of Covid-related funding to domestic abuse services and launched the #YouAreNotAlone campaign to signpost people to support.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

During the present Covid crisis, domestic abuse is, sadly, increasing in the UK. Can my noble friend confirm that, in their approach to those who may suffer domestic abuse, the Government will ensure that recognition and support are afforded to men as well as women and children as well as adults, and that they understand that abuse may be as much economic or psychological as physical in nature?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I agree with all my noble friend’s points. Children are included in the definition due to the effects domestic abuse has on them, potentially for the rest of their lives. He is right about the economic aspect; coercive control is a very efficient way in which abusers control their victims.

Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have been most fortunate to have had many EU and EEA citizens working in our country for many years. Without them and the services that they have performed, and still do perform, many of our key businesses and public services would be hard pressed.

One of the greatest areas of mutual benefit of our membership of the EU has been the possibility of free movement and the choice made by Europeans to work and live here, and by many UK subjects to work and live in other European countries. Therefore, whatever we can do to alleviate the new pressures on those who wish to continue their lives here is to be welcomed.

I had the privilege of serving as the Immigration Minister in the Home Office for a time in the 1990s. Then, although I was a strong adherent to UK immigration and asylum procedures, I adopted a principle of dealing with cases in a way that we deemed firm but fair. I therefore noted the reference to that principle by the Minister on the immigration Bill yesterday and am glad to see that it has remained in the Home Office psyche ever since.

In dealing with our EU citizens here, we now need rather better mood music. Whatever rules and regulations we need to introduce, such as the three measures before us today, we really must ensure that the new requirements and burdens on those subject to the provisions are operated not only firmly and fairly but, above all, sympathetically, where needed.

I fully recognise that, once the transition period ends, the Government intend to remove the more favourable treatment offered to European citizens over citizens from other parts of the world, but the withdrawal agreement, which we and the EU parties signed, set down clearly the arrangements on which these three measures are based. It gave EU citizens here and UK citizens in Europe certain specific rights and an exceptional status in the short term. On frontier workers, it is mainly of relevance to Irish citizens, who, since July, have required a permit to be here. Recent debates have been to do with the form of that permit. Can my noble friend confirm that this is now a physical document, not merely an electronic notice? The restrictions on rights of entry or residence arise under Article 20 of the withdrawal agreement. Can my noble friend confirm that all decisions on removal are fully appealable?

On the third item, regarding the application deadline and temporary protection, a period of six months is described as a period of grace. This needs clarification in a number of respects. There are contradictions, so can my noble friend assist us in describing precisely the status of an applicant for residence during the period of grace following the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020? If leave is not granted by that date, applicants are no longer lawfully resident. What of their rights to healthcare and employment? Will they be protected throughout the grace period? What is the position if a decision on their case has been taken and an appeal is pending? The period of grace must allow for some generosity in the implementation. The applications are for residency, often for people who have been here for years.

Many of us are hoping that the outcome of current negotiations with the EU will include major co-operation areas in the fields of justice and security. As someone who spent many years in the European Parliament helping to put together many provisions which are there to protect us all from terrorism and criminality, I strongly hope that we reach a satisfactory outcome. Without a close arrangement, matters such as those being debated here will be more problematic in cases where some joint action or enforcement is required. The announcement today in the other place of a toughening up of action against EU criminals will be of little use unless the real-time exchange of data between law enforcers and intelligence agencies negotiated and agreed by me and many others over many years is protected and available to us.

These are necessary SIs, but as with so many others they depend on our reaching a friendly accord with the 27 states of Europe and, of course, on proper adherence to the withdrawal agreement in which these specific items are enshrined.

Asylum System

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reform the asylum system.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office is working to improve asylum decision-making processes. The work will simplify, streamline and digitise processes, ensuring that asylum claimants are treated quickly and fairly and that claims which do not qualify are rapidly identified and prepared for return.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

I thank my noble friend for that reply; clearly, she agrees that it is only fair that applications for asylum be considered as speedily as possible and that those who fail to meet our conditions are removed from the country, also as quickly as possible. But in this context, will she confirm that the Government still adhere to the important criteria set down in the United Nations refugee convention of 1951 in determining our cases?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can certainly confirm that. Clearly, it is in everybody’s interests, including somebody who is coming here to claim asylum, that we process cases quickly and expedite them through the system.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.

As noble Lords will know, the most important duty of legislators when considering measures such as the ones in the Bill is to protect the public from those who might harm them and to keep our hard-fought freedoms safe. I suggest that the Bill responds to that obligation in a suitable and proportionate way. I believe that, unlike some legislation, this has been thoroughly prepared and that the Government have responded to advice, as well as learning from the experience of law enforcers, law professionals and those who have been appointed to review terrorism legislation, including Jonathan Hall QC, the current holder of the role, and the previous reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who I am sure will give us the benefit of his wisdom and experience in the debate today. It has also benefited from careful and responsible scrutiny in the other place. Nevertheless, there are a few items in the proposals that I want to touch on today.

Terrorism is not some distant threat that can be ignored as a non-urgent matter in the consideration of security. In the last three years alone we have succeeded in preventing more than 25 potential attacks by extremists taking place in the UK, many with the direct assistance of our EU neighbours’ police and intelligence agencies. As noble Lords know, there are a large number of data-sharing arrangements in place with other EU countries that allow us to benefit in real time to stop attacks. These have included ECRIS, SIS II, Prüm and others. As rapporteur, I had the privilege shortly before I left the European Parliament to take the EU passenger name records measure through its various stages, with the strong support of the UK Government and the other European Governments. I sincerely hope that we will never allow such helpful provisions, which have proved so valuable, to be lost to the people of this country, since if we do it will inevitably put us in greater danger. I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give us some reassurances on that today.

On other points, I want to mention the changes to the terrorism prevention and investigation measure—TPIM. Of course we know that it is always better to be able to prosecute and, if necessary, deport terrorists than to resort to TPIMs. I know they are not used much and they are not preferred, but the lower standard of proof required for their deployment may well result in them becoming more common in wider circumstances and producing more questions. The removal of the present time limit, while sensible in some cases, raises further questions because, as I am sure we all agree, their use must always be proportionate.

The standard to be followed—that the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual of being involved in terrorist-related activity—has been available since the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, introduced then for making control orders, but it is a considerable watering-down of the current test. Can my noble friend tell us more about why this standard of proof is enough?

I want to refer briefly to the proposals for polygraph testing, both for adult terrorist offenders subject to the release provisions of Section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and as a TPIM requirement. I realise that their use is believed to be of help as a risk-management tool but I understand that they have only just entered pilot testing for domestic abuse offenders from March this year. My noble friend seems confident of their efficacy but I wonder whether he has plans to introduce a pilot programme similar to the one for domestic abuse and, if so, when that might start. Would that not be a good idea, especially before a comprehensive rollout?

My final remarks are to inquire about resources. I know we all greatly admire the work of our police and security services, especially the probation services, but does my noble friend believe that these new responsibilities can be adequately performed by the probation services and do not require more investment?

Any provision that helps us match the current and perceived future threat from terrorism is to be welcomed, and I am pleased to welcome that. Once the legislation is through, I just hope that the sentencing guidelines that must accompany it are not unduly delayed.

Port Examination Codes of Practice and National Security Determinations Guidance Regulations 2020

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Friday 10th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak as a former Home Office Minister responsible for UK borders. In general, of course, I support any measure that helps us to fight terrorism and major criminality and denies opportunities to threaten our citizens. This is a piece of secondary legislation providing codes of practice for our officials. I was one of those who was involved in the drafting of many EU directives in the field, and we ensured that certain principles were always enshrined in the retention of data, including biometric data. In the GDPR, for instance, retention of data should be for no longer than is necessary. That principle, together with the generally accepted requirements for holding and using data of necessity and proportionality, has been the basis of all EU and UK measures for some years. I hope that my noble friend concurs with those principles.

I note the new guidance on obtaining national security determinations which is, of course, subject to safeguards and guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but I still have concerns. Under the PNR directive, for which I was directly responsible, data held should be deleted after five years and depersonalised after six months. We have evidence that, on that basis alone, many attacks on our own country have been deterred. In pursuing these new timescales for retaining data and preparing new guidance, is my noble friend the Minister taking into account the comparable provisions, limits and protections which are enshrined in EU directives, to which we are still party? Is she confident that this measure will not impede the necessary co-operation and real-time operability with our European neighbours once the transition period ends, nor provide an unnecessary complication in our current negotiations for a comprehensive security agreement with the EU?

I am sure my noble friend will agree that we certainly should not be introducing measures or standards which further distance us in areas where future joint efforts with our immediate neighbours to defeat and deter terrorism and major criminality are so vital to UK interests.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Snape. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey.

Child Sex Predators

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, efforts to combat CSA come from a number of funding sources, from the Home Office and elsewhere, and various NGOs. We will base our funding decisions on the best needs of children in this country and how to keep them safe.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I also declare my interest as a long-term champion of the Internet Watch Foundation. There is clear evidence that the chat functions of popular online games and apps are often used by sexual predators to gain access to their victims. Is enough being done by the Government to ensure that parents and those providing these apps and games are aware of the threat?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We are very concerned about some of these games and apps, particularly those with end-to-end encryption, which means that the CSPs themselves cannot see inside them. Therefore, they and law enforcement may not be able to see evidence of child sexual abuse. The Five Eyes are working very hard to this end.

UK Borders: Surveillance

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

It is the Lib Dems’ turn, and then we will hear from the Conservatives.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, he is absolutely right that we have invested in technology such as e-gates, and just before the Calais clearance, my right honourable friend Amber Rudd in the other place stated that £36 million would be committed to support France in the Calais camp clearance. However, on his main point, which is about people being at ports and borders at all times, if we lined this country wall to wall with people, it would still not be as effective as going after the intelligence-led risk, which operates so well.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, as someone who uses airstrips and small airfields in this country, perhaps I might ask the Minister to confirm that, as regards the operations of light aircraft and business aircraft, the regulations already in place are greatly enhanced to protect us and our borders from any illegal intrusions? Would she not agree that anything too onerous as extra requirements could harm our general aviation and business aviation unnecessarily?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right that good measures and regulations are in place to ensure that our GA flights are notified to Border Force. We continue to assess 100% of them, aiming to meet all GA flights to ensure that flights are met by immigration staff and that all checks are completed.