Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting, long and good debate, which has had perhaps more than a hint of a Second Reading debate—but, of course, that is unsurprising, given that Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill. We will of course be able to revisit this debate in the second group when we have the “clause stand part” Question.

We have heard thoughtful speeches from many noble Lords, but I particularly valued the insights from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam, Lord Sandhurst and Lady Lawlor, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson.

For now, let me respond to the amendments directly. First, Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seek to add into the Bill definitions of “illegal migration” and “unlawful migration”. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that this would be helpful in the interests of legal certainty. As a lawyer myself, I am all in favour of legal certainty but, in this instance, I am not persuaded that adding these definitions helps in this regard.

It is important to incorporate Bill-wide definitions in a Bill where terms are used across the Bill. We have done that in this Bill and, as noble Lords will have noticed, Clause 64 includes an index of defined expressions. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord that nothing hangs off the terms “unlawful migration” or “illegal migration” and, consequently, there is no need to define them. The term “unlawful migration” is used only once in the Bill, in Clause 1(1), while the term “illegal migration” is used only in the Short Title, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, observed. Moreover, it is clear from Clause 2 that the duty to make arrangements for removal applies to persons who meet the four conditions in that clause. It does not apply to other persons who may be in the country unlawfully—for example, because they have overstayed their limited leave to enter or remain. In short, the Bill is clear without these two terms being defined.

As regards the early intervention in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a point repeated by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee, as well as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I remind your Lordships that the Immigration Act 1971 was recently amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 with regard to the criminal offences relating to illegal entry and arrival. This includes people who enter the UK without leave or arrive in the UK without permission: for example, without a visa where that is required under the Immigration Rules. This means that such persons are illegal migrants whether or not they go on to claim asylum. This, if I may say, answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of what makes a route illegal. The answer is: legislation, passed in the normal way, and scrutinised and passed by this House.

The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that anyone making claims under the refugee convention can never be illegal, represents, with respect, a muddled reading of the convention. The convention is clear that states can still operate controls on illegal migration and, under Article 31, it is expressly permitted to disadvantage those who have arrived illegally from safe countries—which is true of all who come from France. This embodies the first safe country principle in the sense that Article 31 protections apply only to those who have come directly from unsafe countries—a point made by my noble friend Lady Lawlor.

The first safe country principle is also widely recognised internationally, including in the Common European Asylum System, a framework of rules and procedures operated by EU countries together, based on the refugee convention. I would add that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, may have overlooked the fact that, under Clause 2(4) of this Bill, the “duty to remove” does not apply to those who have come directly from unsafe countries, in line with the refugee convention.

The refugee convention seems to be raised to support statements that are not all borne out by its terms. We must interpret the convention as it is written, not as others would wish it to be written.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I merely want to ask whether you are recommending that all of the 46,000 who arrived last year should be sent back to France. If so, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with President Macron about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, the Prime Minister and President Macron have had regular discussions and there have been regular treaties and agreements in relation to the enhancement of police powers in France, but it is not presently the position of the French Government that they are willing to accept the return of those who have entered the UK illegally. That is what drives the Government to look for other avenues to dissuade people from embarking on the dangerous journey across the channel.

Turning to Amendment 2, tabled—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I wonder if he could direct my attention to where in Article 31 of the refugee convention it refers to “illegal migrants”. I can find a reference only to “illegal entry or presence” or “entry or presence without authorisation”. It is the entry or the presence that is illegal or unauthorised; it is not the person. That is the problem that many of us have with the term “illegal migrant”. I cannot find it in Article 31 of the refugee convention; perhaps I have not looked hard enough.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I was indeed about to mention her in my next sentence. Let me address that point and repeat what I said earlier. The phrase “illegal migration” in the Short Title of the Bill refers to the fact that the act of entering otherwise than in accordance with immigration controls was criminalised by an Act passed by this House and the other place in 2022. That is why it is correct to describe such people as “illegal migrants”—because they did not enter in accordance with immigration controls. That is the long and the short of it. The interpretation of Article 31 is irrelevant as regards that point of certainty.

I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. This amendment seeks to strike out subsection (5), which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than the strained interpretations imposed by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson, King’s Counsel, pointed out, Section 3 is an unusual provision in UK law and there is, in principle, no reason why it cannot be excluded in cases like this.

It is our view that Parliament and the Government are better suited to address the sensitive policy issues involved in this legislation. It is therefore only right that Section 3, which requires the court to interpret the provisions to achieve compatibility with convention rights, must be disapplied so that courts interpret the law in accordance with the purpose of the Bill. Through this, we are ensuring that the balance between our domestic institutions is right and that Parliament’s intent is clear to the courts.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained, Amendment 3 flows from the recent report of the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful to that committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. We are studying its report carefully and will respond in full ahead of Report. As for the genesis of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord explained that the Constitution Committee considered that more explanation was needed around the Section 19(1)(b) statement that I made on the introduction of the Bill in this House.

Notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted from my Second Reading speech on this issue, I reiterate the point I made at that stage: a Section 19(1)(b) statement means not that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the convention rights, only that we cannot be certain that they are compatible. The assertion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his speech a moment ago, that the statement amounts to a concession that measures in the Bill are incompatible, is not the case. The purpose of Section 19, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out, is that it is a statement that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with convention rights and we cannot be certain that they are compatible. It is of course a measure in a piece of legislation passed by the last Labour Government and therefore something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would no doubt place great weight on. Those are the terms that we find in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister not think that it might at least be a courtesy to the Committee to set out which of the provisions, in his view and that of the Home Secretary, are or are not compatible with the convention? That would help us to determine the quality of the legislation that is proposed.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will come to address the issues of the broad applicability of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. There is no requirement in the Act for a statement to identify any particular section. Indeed, I do not want to wade into the waters that were nearly ventured into during the interventions on my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s speech about whether the Section 19(1)(b) statement in relation to the Communications Bill, as it then was, was in accordance with the statute.

In any event, I return to the principle of Section 19(1)(b) statements. It is right to say that they have been made by Governments of all stripes, not least in the Communications Bill, as we heard earlier in the debate, but also by the coalition Government and by Nick Clegg in the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson rightly indicated, issuing a Section 19(1)(b) statement is a legitimate choice given to Ministers under the Human Rights Act. Why else would the Act provide for such a course?

As I have said, previous Governments have issued such statements, and clearly that has not caused our international reputation to collapse. More broadly, I encourage the Committee to approach questions of international reputation with a proper perspective. The world can be in no doubt that we are defenders of rights and liberty, the most obvious example being our leading support for Ukraine.

Requiring guidance to be approved by Parliament on how the Bill’s provisions are to be interpreted within the meaning of the Human Rights Act is unnecessary. On 7 March the Government published a memorandum addressing issues arising under the ECHR, and a supplementary memorandum was published in April in relation to the government amendments tabled for Report in the Commons. These memoranda set out a provision-by-provision ECHR analysis, so I submit that the Government’s position is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will find the answers to his questions about what sits behind the Section 19(1)(b) statement in those memoranda.

It will undoubtedly be necessary to provide Home Office staff, immigration officers and others with appropriate guidance to support the implementation of the Bill. It would not be appropriate for such routine operational guidance on the implementation of a particular Act to be subject to parliamentary approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

When my noble friend was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, he said that the ECHR memorandum set out precisely which articles of the convention had that effect and which clauses in the Bill were compatible or not, and, as he says, different rights are listed. But what is the status of that definitive document? He says it is the answer to the noble Lord’s question, but what is its status? Presumably it does not have legal effect in itself.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is correct: the ECHR memorandum is one of the documents prepared to support the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Obviously, if a matter of interpretation were required, it is the sort of material that those looking for an interpretation might be minded to refer to. Indeed, it is open to those in Parliament to refer to such documents. It is, of course, right to say that the ECHR memorandum is a standard part of the package in relation to public Bills—so, in that sense, it has regular status.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Before the Minister leaves this part of his address, will he tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government that the implementation of the Act should be compliant with all the conventions that are set out in Amendment 4? Do the Government intend to comply with those conventions? This House is entitled to know.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I have already outlined, it is clear that there is nothing in the Bill that would require the UK to breach its international obligations. The UK takes compliance with those obligations very seriously. As for the other international instruments referred to in these amendments, they have not, by and large, been incorporated into UK domestic law, and we should not seek to do so in this Bill through the back door.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister seems to be placing a great deal of weight on there being nothing in this Bill that requires the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations. He would surely agree, however, that there is a great deal in this Bill that enables the Government to take action that would be contrary to our international obligations—and that without any recourse to Parliament.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. There is no requirement that powers should conceivably be expressed on the face of every Bill in such a way that they are trammelled by international obligations. That would be contrary to the dualist system, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson made abundantly clear. I am reluctant to reopen that particular exchange at this juncture, given the time that we have remaining prior to the dinner break.

States take different approaches to their international law obligations. Some states treat international law as part of their domestic law, but the UK, like other countries with similar constitutional arrangements, including many Commonwealth countries, has the dualist approach that we have discussed before. In those states, international law is treated as separate from domestic law and international law is incorporated into domestic law only by decisions of Parliaments through legislation. That is a point we have already discussed. The effect of these amendments would be to make the provisions of all the listed international agreements effectively justiciable in the UK courts. It is legitimate for noble Lords to make the case for incorporation into domestic law of one or more of these international instruments, but that is not the Government’s position, and we should not be using this Bill to secure that outcome.

I hope that, in light of my explanation, the noble and learned Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment 1.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I wonder whether the Minister could help me. He said that the Government would apply—I gather—all the conventions that are in Amendment 4. May I suggest that it would be impossible for the Government to apply the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is perfectly obvious that the best interests of a child throughout the Bill will not be recognised.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, as I have already said, it is the Government’s view that nothing in the Bill requires the UK to breach its international obligations, whether in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or any of the other listed international instruments. Of course, the United Kingdom takes compliance with its international obligations very seriously.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting and far-ranging debate. I am conscious of the time, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to go over the ground in any detail, and I am not going to do that.

The Minister, with great respect, has not really answered many of the questions that have been raised. We will come back to this, I am sure, possibly in the next group, but certainly these questions will come back on Report and will need to be answered in much more detail. So far as my own amendments are concerned—the definition point—the Minister has pointed out that nothing hangs on these words because they do not reappear elsewhere in the Bill. I was well aware of that when I tabled the amendment, but that raises the question: why brand the actions of these people coming here as unlawful or illegal, unless, of course, they are in breach of specific legislation, which is not always the case? That illustrates the unfortunate wording of Clause 1, which we will come back to.

As far as Amendment 3 is concerned, which deals with the question of guidance, I do not think, with great respect, that the ECHR memoranda amount to the kind of guidance that is needed in a situation where access to the courts is being denied. Something more specific is needed, and that is what the amendment is driving at. Perhaps we will come back to that at some later stage. For the time being, I think the simplest thing I should do, so that we can move on, is beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just add my voice to the requests from various noble Lords across the Chamber for specific answers to these specific questions that have been raised; I think the Committee deserves those answers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 1 sets out the Bill’s overarching purpose and provides an overview of the provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent and deter illegal migration and, in particular, migration to the UK by unsafe and illegal routes, by requiring the removal from the UK of individuals who arrive in breach of immigration control.

Subsection (2) then summarises the key provisions of the Bill that advance this core purpose, including the duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who meet the conditions in Clause 2.

The numbers arriving on small boats in 2022 exceeded 45,700, and, as I set out at Second Reading, the Bill is essential to deal with these illegal, dangerous and unnecessary channel crossings. Putting the purpose of the Bill front and centre, right at the start of the Bill, will make it abundantly clear to all, including the illegal entrants themselves, NGOs, the courts and others, what Parliament’s intent is in enacting this Bill. As subsection (3) provides, the subsequent provisions in the Bill should be interpreted by the courts and others in line with this statutory purpose. Again, it is incredibly helpful to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, although I should add that subsection (3) simply reaffirms the established principle that the courts and others should interpret the Bill to deliver its purpose.

To assist this purpose, Clause 1 also disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. As I have already explained in the previous debate, the disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than strained interpretations by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights.

The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Paddick, asked about the impact assessment. We have already published an equality impact assessment and will publish an economic impact assessment in due course. The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the purported impact assessment published by the Refugee Council. We do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in that document. Any assessment of the impact of the Bill must also acknowledge the cost of not proceeding with it. Our broken asylum system is costing this country £3 billion a year, and over £6 million a day in hotel costs. This cannot continue. The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1—

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord has made two points. I am particularly asking about this sentence in the Government’s ECHR memorandum—so the Government’s position. It says at paragraph 1.5 about the removal of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act:

“This does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights”.


Article 5 of the convention clearly states:

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court”.


So is the paragraph in the memorandum compatible with what I have just read out? If so, it means that when people are detained, they will be able to take their cases to a court in this country.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The answer to the question, if I have understood the noble Lord, is yes, but I think he misinterprets the purpose of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. It is not the clause by which the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights are reflected in UK domestic law. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act invites a court to construe parts of other domestic statutes or secondary legislation compatibly with convention rights. It does not mean that this is the mechanism by which convention rights are actionable in UK law, which is the standpoint that I think the noble Lord, Lord German, appears to suggest is the basis for his point. I fear that, as a matter of legal analysis, I think that to be wrong.

The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1 somehow upsets the separation of powers. It does not. It simply makes it clear that in interpreting this legislation, judges should seek to advance the purposes of the Bill. The Bill, and actions taken under it, are still clearly capable of review in the courts, and individuals can seek to prevent their own removal by making a suspensive claim. So, the courts are still involved, and regulations are still subject to approval by Parliament. I hope the noble Lord can rest assured that on closer inspection, this Bill leaves our separation of powers undisturbed.

I also want to pick up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who suggested that the Bill prevents human rights challenges. This is simply not the case. The Bill provides for two kinds of challenges that would have the effect of suspending removal. Other legal challenges, whether on European Convention on Human Rights grounds or other grounds, are not precluded, but they do not suspend removal. As I have indicated, Clause 1 makes the purpose of the Bill crystal clear for all to see. This will help to guide all decisions made by officials and immigration officers, Ministers, the courts and others in giving effect to the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me on this. The “strained decisions” of the courts is a phrase that has been used at least three or four times this evening. As a former judge, I find that difficult to understand. I would like some elucidation as to what is meant by “strained decisions” and what examples there are.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The context of a strained decision, as the noble and learned Baroness will be aware, are circumstances where there is an ordinary, natural reading of a statute but a judge feels constrained to interpret the words of a statute in a particular way to give effect to a convention right. As the noble and learned Baroness is aware, this is a fairly obvious application of the term, and it is quite usual for such—perhaps more difficult—interpretations to be described as “strained”. I can certainly identify a number of examples, and I will write to the noble and learned Baroness in relation to them.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is a persistent non-answerer of questions; I am a persistent asker of questions. The two questions I asked—I will repeat them at dictation speed if he wishes—were echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman and the Labour Front Bench spokesman. I think we are due a reply to both those questions. Does the Minister have the answers, or do I have to repeat the questions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord does repeatedly ask questions, and I repeatedly answer them. As he identifies, there is a difference in interpretation of Article 31 of the refugee convention. I entirely appreciate that he does not accept my interpretation; and I do not accept his. That is where we are. It is not a rigmarole. This is a matter of position and legal analysis, and I am afraid that this is the Government’s position.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

And the second question, please?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I believe I have answered both the noble Lord’s questions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The second question was: could the Minister please tell us that the phrase that he used, which was that nothing in this Bill “requires” the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations, does not obviate the fact that the Bill enables the Government so to do if they so wish and without any further recourse to Parliament?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is consistent with the normal practice in statute.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might come back to the question asked by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I think the Minister said that he would write to her with examples of strained interpretation. I sat for many years on the Appellate Committee in the Supreme Court dealing with cases under the Human Rights Act, and I am not aware of any particular case where I was straining the language. I do not think I went very far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words.

I remember we were faced with a very difficult case involving two men who wanted to marry. In those days, the Marriage Act was very specific that marriage was between a man and a woman. We could have strained the language, but we did not do that; we said the provision was incompatible, which I think the Minister would recognise as a perfectly orthodox way to proceed. I think we were quite careful not to stray beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation. I would be very interested to know whether he has examples of where we really did go beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said, I will be writing to the noble and learned Baroness, but the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, set out various examples, including Ullah and Al-Skeini, and there are others. This has been a matter of jurisprudential development since the commencement of the Human Rights Act. It is a well-known evolution in interpretive principle, and it is that which is addressed by the provisions in this Bill.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Following-up on my question about impact assessment, the Minister says that the Government do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs, but why not? How can they say that they do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs when they do not have their own impact assessment with which to contradict them?

The Minister also talked about the cost of not enacting this legislation, in terms of the current cost of what I think he called the “broken asylum system”—of a Government who have been in power for 13 years. To what extent is the high cost of accommodating asylum seekers in the UK down to the fact that there is a huge backlog of applications that have not been processed by the Home Office, when some 15 years ago there were almost double the number of applications and hardly any backlog?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Government do not recognise the figures in the purported impact assessments provided by the bodies that were referred to, such as the Refugee Council, because we do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in them. Furthermore, those documents do not acknowledge any assessment of the impact of the effect of not proceeding with the measures in the Bill.

[Lord German (LD)]

What is the Minister’s definition of “soon”, which he said was when we would receive the impact assessment? Will it be before the end of Committee, before the start of Report or after Report and before Third Reading? Perhaps he could be more explicit.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The impact assessment will be provided when the decision is taken that it is appropriate to disclose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Does the Minister therefore think that it is appropriate that the body which is deciding about this Bill—Parliament—should receive the impact assessment, and should that impact assessment be with us before we complete Committee on the Bill? Surely that is appropriate. It is not for the Government to decide. It is for the Government to make their case to Parliament. If they cannot do so, because they have not got the document, because the document is not sufficiently robust or because it is not available, then the Minister should be able to tell us that right now, so that we know the basis on which we are judging this Bill.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I can tell the noble Lord only that it will be published in due course and that this is entirely normal.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Frankly, this is unacceptable. Without being rude, I say that the Committee must at some point have the impact assessment. How on earth can we make many of the judgments on amendments and on the various things that we may wish to come forward with on Report if we do not have an impact assessment? It is normal practice for an impact assessment to be provided so that proper decisions can be made. Can the Minister at least go back to the department and say that this Chamber—I think I speak for everyone —is very unhappy that no impact assessment is due, and that we need one? Will he ask his department to provide one for us—at least well before Report?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

To add to that, we should have had a child rights impact assessment. That is supposed to be done right at the outset of the policy discussion. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have been published at the same time as the Bill.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The House knows my position. I have obviously heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have said, and I will of course take those points back to the department.

Clause 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Clause 2 is the centrepiece of the scheme provided for in the Bill. At its heart, the Bill seeks to change the existing legal framework so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or to a safe third country.

Clause 2 seeks to achieve this by placing a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove those who come to the UK illegally. The duty applies where an individual meets the four conditions set out in Clause 2, which I will briefly rehearse.

The first condition is about the lawfulness of the person’s entry into the UK. This underlines the Government’s commitment to take all possible measures to stop people making dangerous journeys to enter the UK illegally, particularly across the English Channel.

The second condition is that the individual must have entered the UK on or after 7 March—the day of the Bill’s introduction in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor noted. This is a crucial condition that will ensure that we do not create a perverse incentive for migrants to take illegal and dangerous journeys in an attempt to avoid being subject to the Bill’s provisions. I will return to this point in a moment.

The third condition states that the duty will apply to an individual who has not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened. That means that anyone entering the UK from another country where their life was not in danger will fall within the scope of the duty. This is consistent with our obligations under the refugee convention and upholds the principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is manifestly no need for people to make those dangerous journeys when they are already in a country where they are safe or could, in the case of France, for example, claim asylum. It places themselves and others at risk and puts money into the hands of organised criminals.

The fourth and final condition is that an individual requires leave to remain but does not have it. The duty to make arrangements for removal is subject only to very limited exceptions signposted in Clause 2(11), which we will come on to at a later date when we come to a later clause.

The fundamental point is that, subject to these limited exceptions, the Home Secretary will be under a clear and unambiguous legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who satisfy those four conditions. She should not be deflected from fulfilling that legal duty. These provisions make it very clear that if you meet these four conditions you will not be able to make a new life in the UK.

A number of the amendments in this group relate to the four conditions I have described. Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, relates to the second condition. In effect, this and other amendments tabled by the noble Lord seek to do away with the backdating of the duty to remove so that it applies only to those who illegally enter the country from the date of commencement rather than from 7 March. Amendment 39 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with the same point.

The explanatory note to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 39 sums up the position well, as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It says:

“This amendment seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.


I was challenged by the noble and learned Lord to explain what that good reason was. The Government entirely agree with the explanatory note from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Committee will know that it is not uncommon in exceptional circumstances for legislation to have retrospective effect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, noted. But as the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged, there must be good reason for such exceptions. I suggest to the Committee that there is good reason in this instance for retrospection.

I would say that the retrospective nature of these provisions is critical. Without it, we risk organised criminals and people smugglers seeking to exploit this with an increase in the number of illegal arrivals ahead of commencement of the provisions in the Bill. This would likely lead to an increase in these unnecessary and dangerous small boat crossings and could even place more pressure on not only our asylum system, but our health, housing, educational and welfare services, not to mention our services for saving lives at sea.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Can the Minister explain why in that case the Nationality and Borders Act does not have a retrospective clause? What evidence does the Minister have, having announced the retrospective elements and that the provisions apply from when the Bill was first introduced into the House of Commons? What deterrent effect have we seen in terms of reducing the number of boat crossings?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly. The structure of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was very different. It was not a Bill like this one, which focuses on a duty to remove and is targeted at creating a disincentive effect on people crossing the channel. This is a very differently structured piece of legislation and therefore the retrospective element is a vital and logical part of the scheme in the Bill.

As to the evidence of the deterrent effect taking effect from the date of introduction, this is seen potentially in the fact that—and one can only draw inferences from the figures—it would appear that the numbers are down on this time last year. I accept that the weather has facilitated a good measure of that, but it is certainly right to say that had there not been a retrospectivity measure in the Bill I would conjecture that the numbers crossing the channel would have been far higher. It would have been easy for people smugglers to advertise their services—and I will come to this in a moment—as something of a fire sale, saying, “Get across the channel now. Here’s your opportunity before these measures in the Government’s new scheme take effect”.

The provision in the Bill does not mean that all those who enter the country illegally on or after 7 March will be subject to the duty to remove in Clause 2(1). We have expressly provided in Clause 4(7) that asylum and human rights-based claims made on or after 7 March may be decided by the Secretary of State prior to the commencement of Clause 4. Where a person is then granted leave to remain, they will not be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, noted that retrospectivity is problematic because it impinges on legal certainty. The key here is that we have been clear in the Bill and in the public messaging—for example, in the statement given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the other messaging—that this is the date when the scheme will commence. That means that there can be no uncertainty about the Government’s intention. While I accept that this is unusual in our legal system, it is not unheard of. The Revenue sometimes announces intended changes to tax law which are then later introduced by Finance Bills but backdated to the date of the announcement. In those cases, it is usually to prevent a closing-down sale of improper tax structures. There, retrospectivity is designed to protect tax revenue. Here, it is to prevent a closing-down sale of dangerous, sometimes fatal, channel crossings in the lead-up to some prospective date. We do not take this step lightly but feel it is necessary to reduce this perverse incentive.

I say “reduce” advisedly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has pointed out that migrants on the other side of the channel may not be as well advised as some taxpayers, but it is clear they are alive to changes in policy in the UK. For example, it is clear that announcements of a change in the approach to Albanian illegal migrants has led to a very significant dropping off of that cohort in the small boats, even before removals have begun at scale. This shows that the criminal gangs and migrants are aware of policy announcements in the UK, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor has pointed out. Similarly, the original announcement of the Rwanda scheme was known in the camps in Calais, with some suggesting in reporting that asylum seekers sought to go to the Republic of Ireland instead to avoid being sent to Rwanda. Indeed, the then Taoiseach Michael Martin noted a surge in applications and partly blamed the Rwanda announcement.

While clearly announcing the start date of the new scheme may not have had a decisive impact, it is important to do everything we can to discourage those dangerous journeys. Announcements such as this can have an impact on behaviour, and we hope they will reduce the incentive for a surge in dangerous crossings, perhaps at a time when the weather makes crossing very dangerous. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, these are the compelling and exceptional circumstances that justify this decision.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this late hour. If I understand him correctly, it will now be permissible to legislate retrospectively in any case of criminality because, by definition, it is very important not to have a fire sale. If we believe that certain conduct is wrong and there is a gap, whatever that conduct is, and if it is a serious enough matter to legislate in criminal terms, for example, it would now and in the future be permissible to legislate retrospectively.

My second point is that the Minister seems to suggest, like his noble friend Lady Lawlor, that because Ministers have announced a prospective change in the law, that should be good enough, because presumably we now believe that executive fiat and ministerial announcements and pronouncements are enough to suggest to people, not just in our own country but across the world, that that is what the law is and will be and always was. Have I understood the Minister correctly on this point?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, I am sorry to say. Clearly the position is not that in every case where there is a change in the criminal law it should have retrospective effect to the date of the Bill’s introduction. That is absolutely not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this context, to prevent a rush of people into these dangerous vessels, crossing the channel at a time when there is potentially bad weather, those were the special circumstances that justified retrospection in these provisions. To go back to one of the last major Bills to go through your Lordships’ House, which became the Public Order Act, I would not dream of suggesting that the offence of locking on should have had retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill; there would have been no exceptional circumstances for that.

While I am on the topic of the speech just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I would like to address her suggestion that limited retrospectivity will lead to refoulement. This is clearly not the case. I can do no more than repeat that this Bill does not allow refoulement. It does not allow the Government to remove individuals to places where they will be in danger—and that, quite rightly, is under the supervision of the courts.

In particular, I would refer noble Lords to the clauses in the Bill relating to suspensive claims—Clauses 37 to 50—which allow Upper Tribunal judges to determine whether an individual faces a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”. If such a case is made out, the individual will not be removed to that place.

Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, relates to the third condition and to the issue of whether a person has or has not “come directly” from a country where their life and liberty were threatened. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people arriving through safe and legal routes rather than those who are strong or rich enough to have journeyed through safe countries and paid the people smugglers before they reach the UK.

In answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord German, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, people seeking sanctuary should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is no uniform international interpretation of the many concepts of the refugee convention. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides the treaty to be interpreted “in good faith”. It is on this basis that we have set out our interpretation of “come directly” through Clause 2. I might add that, were Amendment 7—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The Minister is beginning to address the question that I have raised twice: why should we accept this Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over and above that of the body that is given authority by the UN to interpret it for the international community? Every other organisation that has briefed us has followed the UNHCR in its interpretation and there are very real fears of refoulement. As a noble Lord opposite said earlier. the reason given seems to be “Because we say so”, as you would say to a child. That is not good enough. We want to know exactly why we should accept the Government’s interpretation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. The reality is that the Government take legal advice. The UNHCR is clearly a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention. Some parts of the UNHCR have views on the Government’s position, but it is always worth recalling that the UNHCR itself maintains refugee arrangements and accommodation in Rwanda. In December, the High Court considered the submissions from the UNHCR and discounted what was said. So I invite the noble Baroness, rather than simply taking the Government’s word for it, to review the judgment of the Divisional Court, a careful and considered judgment, which considered the legality of the removal scheme.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister has latched on to the wrong point—not the point that the UNHCR has made again and again that it is not compatible with the obligations of our membership to refuse to consider a request for asylum. It is nothing to do with Rwanda; it is to do with refusing a request for asylum. The Minister admitted earlier that there is no explicit provision in the refugee convention that permits us to do that. That is the basis of the UNHCR’s position. Frankly, his suggestion that there are differences of opinion in the UNHCR is pretty contemptible. The High Commissioner for Refugees has said he does not think this is compatible.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I again find myself at odds with the noble Lord. The reality is that the UN itself relocates refugees to Rwanda. As I say, there is no suggestion that people’s asylum claims will not be dealt with under this scheme; their asylum claim will be dealt with in Rwanda once they are removed, and that is entirely compatible with the convention. There is no requirement on a member state of the convention to determine asylum claims within its own territory. That is abundantly plain.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The Minister says there is no requirement in the convention for a convention state to handle an asylum request on its own territory, but surely the deal with Rwanda rules out our ever hearing these cases. In Rwanda, people are allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, but their case for asylum in the United Kingdom will never be admitted. Is that not correct?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is entirely correct, yes. Their asylum claim will be determined by the Government of Rwanda. That is the system that the High Court found to be entirely lawful in December.

If Amendment 7 were agreed, removing the third condition, the duty to remove would also apply to those who had come directly from a country where their life and liberty were threatened, and I am sure that is not what the noble Lord would want.

Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, also relates to the third condition. I put it to the noble Lord that the wording in Clause 2(4), referring to threats by reason of a person’s race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, reflects the definition of a refugee in Article 1 of the refugee convention. We have heard a lot today about adherence to the refugee convention and other international treaties. There may be a case for amending the definitions in the convention to reflect the world of today rather than what it was in 1951, but we should not put the cart before the horse and insert wording in the Bill at odds with the current wording of the convention.

I add that the reference to membership of a particular social group may, on the facts of a particular case, cover a person fleeing persecution on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. Lastly, it is not right to suggest, as the noble Lord does, that the Bill removes individualised assessments. It does not. Officials will make assessments and those can be challenged, including by way of suspensive claims, as we have already discussed.

Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove subsection (7). This ties in with the fourth condition, which is that a person requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but does not have it. We will have a fuller debate about unaccompanied children later in Committee, but subsection (7) recognises that the duty to remove does not apply to unaccompanied children, and where they are not to be removed under the power conferred in Clause 3, the expectation is that they will normally be provided with temporary permission to remain in the UK until they are 18 years old under provisions to be made in the Immigration Rules. If subsection (7) is removed from Clause 2, an unaccompanied child given this temporary permission to remain would not then satisfy the fourth condition, thereby undermining our approach to unaccompanied children. As I say, we will have a fuller debate on this issue when we get to Clause 3, which feels like some time away.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also has Amendment 10, requiring the Home Secretary to inform people when it has been decided that the duty to remove applies to them. Such information would include providing details of any evidence relied upon to make that decision. We have already provided, in Clause 7(2), for a person to be issued with a removal notice detailing, among other things, their right to make a suspensive claim. It is implicit in these provisions that the issue of a removal notice follows a determination that the person satisfies the four conditions in Clause 2. The four conditions relate to issues of fact. A person in receipt of a removal notice will themselves know, or ought to know, whether the conditions apply. If they have compelling evidence that the Home Secretary has made a mistake of fact, they can submit a factual suspensive claim to challenge the removal notice. We will return to those provisions, too, in due course in Committee.

Amendment 11 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others. As we will come on to in later clauses, we have made particular provision for potential victims of modern slavery who are co-operating with law enforcement agencies, and it is necessary for them to remain in the UK in furtherance of such co-operation. In later debates, we will address the wider issue of the progress being made by the NCA and others in tackling the criminal gangs that are not perpetuating human trafficking but are engaged in people smuggling. It is worth also noting, in response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that if an individual who had been trafficked came forward, they would be sent only somewhere where they would be safe—whether their own home country, if it was safe, or a safe third country. In all cases, they would no longer be in the control of their trafficker.

A key purpose of the Bill is to break the business model of the people smugglers. That will not happen if we undermine the central tenet of the Bill: that if you come here illegally you cannot stay, and instead you will be liable to detention and promptly removed. If we build exceptions and loopholes into the fabric of the Bill, it will be undermined and will not work. If those coming over on small boats have information that will assist in the investigation of people-smuggling offences, they can provide it, but this cannot be a reason to delay removal. Any co-operation with law enforcement agencies can, if appropriate, continue from abroad. If the experience of the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that a lot can be achieved remotely. Indeed, our domestic courts and law enforcement are well used to this by now.

Finally, Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, deals with the issue of entry into the United Kingdom over the Irish land border. We discussed this at length during the dinner break business yesterday in relation to the recent SI on electronic travel authorisation. I note that this is a probing amendment relating to the concerns that have been raised regarding tourists and other people who inadvertently arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland. As is currently the case, tourists from countries requiring visas to come to the UK as visitors should obtain these before they travel. That is as it should be. That said, I recognise the issue she has raised and accept that some individuals may, entirely unwittingly, enter the UK without leave via the Irish land border, as I said yesterday.

We are examining this issue further. I would point the noble Baroness to the regulation-making power in Clause 3, which will enable us to provide for exceptions to the duty to remove where it would be appropriate to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me about the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2. The short answer is that the child will not satisfy the conditions in Clause 2, but I will write to her with a more detailed explanation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about compatibility with article 2 of the Windsor Framework. There is a later amendment to which she has added her name, Amendment 137, on this very issue. We will come on to that later in the Committee.

As I indicated at the start, this clause provides the foundations for the Bill as a whole. It is fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme and my fear is that the amendments put forward would serve only to weaken the effectiveness of the scheme. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, there was an issue about adoption of a child who came to this country, or came in the womb of somebody arriving in the country, into a British family. Are they at danger under the Bill?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Forgive me: as I thought I said, the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2 is that they would not satisfy the conditions in that clause. I realise that there were a number of hypotheticals in the way that that question was written. If I may, I would like to go away and think about them. I will reply by letter in due course, and obviously publicise that letter.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The Minister talked about an amendment that I had co-signed. Was it Amendment 132?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It was Amendment 137.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The Minister, not to my surprise, did not address my question about what happens after the election. I will phrase the question another way. In your Lordships’ House, we often ask about “must” and “may” provisions. Rather than a duty to remove, surely the Government could make it that the Secretary of State “may” remove. That would allow this Government to act as they wish but would not attempt to tie the hands of any future Government.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid the structure of the Bill is that it creates a duty on the Secretary of State. That is in order to send the deterrence message that entering the country illegally is unacceptable and to reduce the number of people crossing the channel. I am afraid to say that it is a logical step that if the Government were to change, then it would be open to that other Government to pass legislation of their own. That is democracy.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his patience, but it is not quite right that that is the reason for the “must”, is it? It is not to send a signal to all those people overseas who are reading our draft legislation; it is to give a direction to our courts. The Home Secretary is choosing to tie her own hands. It is really in order to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and their ability to say that where the Secretary of State has a choice, they should exercise that choice in compliance with international law.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the intent is to send a message—that people really must not make these dangerous journeys across the channel. As I say, all the avenues of legal challenge are open but there are only two categories that will suspend removal. There are a number of provisions—I am sure the noble Baroness and I will be debating them at length over the coming days in Committee—and that is how the Bill will have its effect.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Could I ask that the Minister copies everyone who took part in this debate into the letter he is going to send, because it is of interest to many of us?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will certainly place a copy in the Library of the House. I hope that suffices. I am sure that my private office can work out who is here and is participating.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the noble Lord stands up again, I feel I should bring this debate to a close. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who supported the amendments in my name. A number of other very interesting issues have been raised. I have no doubt that we will be returning to a number of them on Report; I certainly will.

The reasons given by the Minister for what he recognises is the exceptional course of retrospectivity—I am using his words—involved conjecture: a conjecture that a very small change in the numbers, for whatever reason, of people coming on boats shows that the retrospectivity is working. I have been a Silk for 39 years. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we have probably met more criminals than the rest of this Committee added together. My observation would be a rather less naive one than that made by the Minister. Criminals are infinitely adaptable. If the Government think that the boats are being stopped, it is not evidence that fewer people are coming into this country, because there are different ways and means of doing it.

From what we have heard today—maybe on Report we will hear something different—I really believe that the case for exceptionality is far from proved. I take the view, therefore, that we will have to come back to these subjects. I urge the Government to meet noble Lords who have spoken in these debates before Report so that we can see whether there is some common ground we can find that will make this a better Bill rather than a battleground in your Lordships’ House. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

Immigration (Electronic Travel Authorisations) (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for securing this short but very interesting debate, and those who have spoken in it.

It almost goes without saying that the Government’s number one priority is to keep the UK safe. To strengthen our border security, we are therefore introducing our electronic travel authorisation—ETA—scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, observed, this approach is in line with the approaches of many of our international partners, which have already taken a similar step. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have similar schemes and, as the noble Lord identified, the European Union—at least the Schengen area and some others—is preparing to introduce a comparable scheme, the European travel information and authorisation system, or ETIAS.

The UK’s ETA scheme will enhance the Government’s ability to prevent the travel of those who pose a risk to the UK. For the first time, ETAs will allow us to screen non-visa national visitors in advance of the border and stop those who pose a threat travelling to the UK. To answer one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the UK’s ETA scheme will launch in October 2023. The scheme will be rolled out in a phased manner from October 2023 until the end of 2024. It is our present understanding that the EU system will launch in 2024, and indications in the European media suggest a date following the Paris Olympics. The UK’s ETA scheme will make the UK a safer place.

The Government have carefully considered the concerns about the application of the ETA scheme within the common travel area, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others said, has been raised in both Houses and by many stakeholders in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

In response to concerns raised about the impact of ETAs on the residents of Ireland who frequently cross the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border, the Government have agreed to exempt non-visa nationals who are legally resident in Ireland from the requirement to obtain an ETA when travelling to the UK on a journey within the common travel area. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that this was done in full consultation with the Northern Ireland Office. Perhaps I should also clarify, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that it was never proposed that Irish citizens would be subject to the ETA system. They, of course, have a special status and always have done, and that is enshrined in primary legislation. The only question that arose was what one did with third-country non-visa nationals within the Republic, and, as I say, they have now been exempted.

In order to benefit from that exemption, those who are legally resident in Ireland may instead, if required by a UK immigration official, present physical evidence that demonstrates their legal residence in Ireland. The Home Office will publish guidance on acceptable evidence before the end of July. I know the noble Baroness was asking me questions about that in the Select Committee, and I am delighted to provide her with a firm date for the publication of that guidance.

The Government have carefully considered requests to exempt those tourists visiting Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland from the ETA requirement, due to concerns that the requirement to obtain an ETA will be considered a bureaucratic barrier for international visitors visiting Northern Ireland from Ireland. While the Government entirely recognise the intention behind that request, an exemption of that kind would undermine the Government’s efforts to strengthen border control and make the UK, and indeed the common travel area, safer.

ETAs will for the first time allow us to have a comprehensive understanding of those seeking to come to the UK via the common travel area and, as I have said, to refuse them permission as appropriate. Exempting tourists visiting Northern Ireland from Ireland from the requirement to obtain an ETA would result in an unacceptable gap in UK border security that would potentially allow persons of interest or risk, who would otherwise be refused an ETA, to enter the UK legally, undermining the very purpose of the ETA scheme, which is to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK. The Government are therefore clear that individuals arriving in the UK, including those visiting Northern Ireland from Ireland, will be required to obtain an ETA. As I say, that is to protect both the UK immigration system and the common travel area from abuse.

It is well established as a principle of the operation of the common travel area that all non-Irish, non-British citizens travelling in all directions within the common travel area must enter in line with the laws of those jurisdictions. We are simply extending the same principle to ETAs when they are introduced. After all, visa nationals—that is, those people travelling from countries that require a visa to come to the UK or to the Republic of Ireland—are expected to do that in any event when crossing the land border, and if they fail to do so they will be entering illegally. However, as now, there will continue to be no routine immigration controls within the common travel area—that is obviously an important principle within the Good Friday agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out—and no immigration controls whatever are maintained on the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland land border.

I assure the House that the ETA application process has been designed to be as quick and easy as possible for applicants to complete. It cleverly utilises technology to minimise the need for manual data entry by applicants. As part of our development of the application process and wider preparations for the launch of the ETA scheme, the Home Office has undertaken extensive user research, and we will continue to build on that even after the scheme is launched. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that our user research to date has been overwhelmingly positive, with test users reporting that the application process was easy and straightforward. It has deliberately been designed to be completed in less than 10 minutes. From my own experience of testing the mobile application on a smartphone, I assure noble Lords that the process for obtaining an ETA will be neither bureaucratic nor burdensome. I was in fact able to complete the process in under five minutes.

Once granted, an ETA will be valid for two years or until the passport used to apply for that ETA expires, allowing the holder to make many repeat journeys to the whole of the UK. Our objective is that applicants will be granted an ETA on the same day as their application. I hope that addresses the point made in relation to ESTAs, the American equivalent, by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Wheatcroft, that same-day travel should still be an option for the majority of tourists crossing the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland land border, even if they have not obtained an ETA further in advance and decide to make a spontaneous visit to Northern Ireland.

I turn briefly to the question of the fee. The Home Office will charge a fee for an ETA application. The fee will be competitive and comparable to similar schemes in operation. For example, the USA charges $21, Australia charges 20 Australian dollars and New Zealand charges 17 New Zealand dollars, all for applications made on their mobile applications, and those charges are equivalent to between £10 and £17. We expect to be able to confirm the exact cost of our ETA shortly. I am sure noble Lords would agree that this is a very small cost for travellers relative to the cost and benefits of visiting the UK. I therefore suggest that it is unlikely to deter the majority of genuine tourists and visitors. That is certainly the experience of other countries that already operate similar schemes.

Finally, in response to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, regarding the impact assessment, the precise impact of the introduction of ETAs is uncertain and depends on the potential behavioural impact on the individuals wishing to travel to the UK. When these countries introduced this system, none of them experienced a dip in tourism. It is worth noting that the impact assessment will estimate the potential impact of the ETA introduction at the agreed fee level and again, as I said in Grand Committee, that impact assessment will be published shortly.

I can reassure the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, that the Government remain committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and to ensuring that there is no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In line with our commitments under strand 2, the Government remain firmly committed to working with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and representatives of the tourism industry, north and south, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively. We are committed to doing all we can to mitigate any risk of it being seen as an increased barrier to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland. My officials are meeting with the Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland in early June to explore how we can best work together to communicate the ETA requirement.

We have made it clear that prosecutions for illegal entry offences will focus on egregious cases and not accidental errors. We will examine very carefully the individual circumstances of each case before deciding whether they should be pursued to prosecution. Ultimately, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will determine whether a prosecution is appropriate and in the public interest.

I hope, therefore, that noble Lords acknowledge that the Government have listened to and addressed the concerns raised in this House and in the other place, by providing an exemption for those who are legally resident in Ireland when travelling to the UK on a journey within the common travel area, and by ensuring that the process of obtaining an ETA is quick and simple for those who require one. We are committed to working with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively, so that we improve the security of the UK and the common travel area without impeding legitimate travel.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to and participated in this debate and thank the Minister for his response.

There remain some outstanding issues, notwithstanding the fact that officials from the Home Office will be meeting with the Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance, Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland, in early June, which I welcome. It would be useful if the Minister could provide me with an update on the outcome, because I am still concerned that there could be a considerable impact on tourism figures from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland, since our local economy, in terms of jobs and the wider circular economy, depends on that. We are seeking a pragmatic solution to that issue if that is at all possible in terms of the exemption. I urge the Minister to look at that.

There have been varying perspectives. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, brought an opposite perspective, with some important questions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Ponsonby, brought another perspective, but the bottom line is that we want the Northern Ireland economy to thrive, to grow and to be boosted, and not to have any impediments or barriers placed in its way. So, looking forward to further responses from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Migrants: Housing

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will list all facilities they plan to build to house: (1) new migrants entering Britain via the English Channel, (2) migrants currently awaiting first determination on their asylum claim, (3) migrants who have been refused their asylum claim on first determination, and (4) migrants currently in hotels but designated for transfer to other accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

I can advise the noble Lord that the Home Office is planning initial asylum accommodation at surplus military sites at Scampton and Wethersfield to accommodate asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom illegally on small boats. We are exploring proposals to use a non-military site in East Sussex and a further military site at Catterick garrison for asylum accommodation, alongside an accommodation barge in Portland Port in Dorset. We are developing immigration removal centres at Haslar and Campsfield.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. A week ago, in broadcast interviews, the Home Secretary was asked a simple question: how many places are the Government seeking to provide in this endeavour to lock up those coming across the channel? I am afraid intellectual internal struggle proved futile and, in the end, she reverted to saying simply, “Well, it will not be 45,000 places we will need”. The Minister will have had a chance to think about the obvious question: just how many secure places for migrants are the Government actually intending to provide?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The answer is that the Government will keep the situation under review and see how many places are required, because the effect of the Bill, when it is passed through this House and the other place, will be to deliver a deterrent effect. Furthermore, those who cross the channel illegally will be removed within 28 days, as is planned in the structure of the Bill. Therefore, the need to detain people will be kept under review and, it is hoped, be limited in number.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are going to keep things under review, will the Minister please review Scampton in Lincolnshire? It is a historic airfield from which the 617 Squadron flew in the last war. We have plans in Lincolnshire to transform it, now that the Red Arrows have gone, into both a museum and a site of industrial production of the technological kind. The Home Secretary has ridden roughshod over the feelings of local people and plans to desecrate a lovely part of Lincolnshire—can that please be put under review immediately?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend but the site in Scampton is well-suited for the purpose of housing asylum seekers. The heritage buildings at Scampton will of course be preserved. While the Home Office listens intently to all representations about the locations of asylum accommodation facilities, it is the case that Scampton is a suitable site and we intend to begin using it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister had the chance to read the debate in another place and the amendments moved by his right honourable friends Theresa May MP and Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, specifically to retain the protections for people who have been victims of human trafficking within the United Kingdom? Does he intend, when he speaks at Second Reading of the Bill next week, to give assurances to the House that this will be dealt with? Will he also say why the Home Secretary has refused to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights to defend legislation that does not even have a disclaimer saying that it is compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I reassure him that I have followed closely the debates in the other place, and in my speeches to the House at Second Reading I will extensively cover the questions raised by my right honourable friend the Member for Maidenhead, and address the broader questions in relation to modern slavery. It is not for me to explain the diary arrangements of the Home Secretary, but I can confirm to the noble Lord that the Home Office takes very seriously its engagement obligations with committees of the House.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, since 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied migrant children, some as young as 10, have been placed in hotels, and more than 200 have gone missing and have not been found. In March, when I asked the Minister if the Home Office had sought legal advice as to whether it had the powers to do this, he declined to answer me. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 gives local authorities alone statutory power for child protection—that includes unaccompanied migrant children. Can the Minister say which Act of Parliament has allowed the Home Office to set this one aside?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

There has been no intention to set aside any provision of the Children Act. As the noble Lord will have seen on his careful reading of the Illegal Migration Bill, there are provisions set out that deal with the transfer of responsibility for children and the approach to be taken to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive after 7 March of this year.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, there are so many questions arising about the standards that will apply in the “facilities”—if I can use that term—around safeguarding, how families with or without children will be dealt with, and how children alone will be dealt with, and around facilities for medical provision, legal advice and so on. Will the Government publish the contracts that they are entering into with private sector providers, so that one can keep an eye on what standards are being required of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Commercial contracts are commercially sensitive, and the usual policy will be adopted in relation to them. Clearly, certain standards will be promulgated, and the noble Baroness will be able to look at those. I would be delighted to facilitate any visits that the noble Baroness may wish to make to the facilities.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that the Home Secretary’s model for the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers is that of the Greek islands of Chios, Lesvos and Samos, where the accommodation is described as “deplorable” by Médecins Sans Frontières, which has been working there. I understand that the trauma of these asylum seekers is made worse by daily stresses and fears and the lack of medical attention. Can the Minister assure the House that every effort is being made within government to require the Home Secretary to change her model for the provision of accommodation for these asylum seekers to ensure that we comply with our international obligations?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not recognise the description that the noble Baroness appends to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s alleged assertion in relation to the Greek islands. Clearly, those crossing the channel from France, who have hitherto slept on the hinterland of the beaches in northern France, are much better accommodated by quality hotel rooms paid for by British taxpayers, and that is something that we need to address. We need to provide adequate but basic accommodation in order to disincentivise those coming here who seek to take advantage of the generosity of the British people.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s question, surely the Government must have a figure for the number of migrants and asylum seekers that they seek to detain. If the Government have no figure at all—not even a working figure within the Home Office—how on earth do they know how many RAF bases they will need to build accommodation on? How many cruise ships, oil rigs and barges are they going to get if they have no idea of how many people they are going to need to detain?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord well knows that it is not the Government’s practice to share working policy assumptions in relation to these issues. As I said, the effect of the Bill will be to deliver a deterrent effect; fewer people will cross the channel and therefore fewer people will need to be detained.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister give a clear undertaking to this House, without any equivocation, that all measures for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees will be in compliance with current UK law and current UK international treaty obligations?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Government will always obey the domestic law.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, tens of thousands of migrants have crossed, and are crossing, into this country, in many cases having made an incredibly dangerous journey across two seas and across many other countries in Europe. What does the Minister think is their prime motivation in coming to this country, rather than any of the other countries that they could have accessed?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

There is no single answer which I can provide to the House. There are many people who come to this country and many different motivations. That has been the subject of myriad academic studies, and it will continue to be studied. I am afraid there is no one clear answer.

Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the draft Code of Practice laid before the House on 13 March be approved.

Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 26 April.

Motion agreed.

Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents.

Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging that non-crime hate incidents have attracted a significant amount of controversy, particularly in this place, due to concerns relating to free speech. I am grateful to all those who expressed their views on this topic during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government fully understand the strength of feeling on this matter, both within this House and among the public more widely, which is precisely why we laid this code before Parliament on 13 March.

Let me first explain that the collection of non-crime hate incident information is a key legacy of the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. This information pertains to incidents which are not crimes and provides the police with the means to understand tensions within communities or cases involving particular individuals before they can escalate into serious harm. In this respect, this data is vital for helping the police build intelligence to understand where they must target resources to prevent serious crimes or harms which may later occur. 

This Government are absolutely clear that vulnerable individuals and communities must continue to be protected. However, non-crime hate incidents must never be used to inhibit lawful debate, and we must also be very careful about what information is kept on an individual’s record. This balance has unfortunately not always been struck, and this issue is precisely what the code is designed to address.

Free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy. This code addresses concerns that those who express views which some consider offensive but are not against the law are at risk of becoming the subject of a non- crime hate incident report, and that this may result in their personal data being stored on a policing record. It addresses those concerns by introducing new safeguards to ensure that personal data may be included in a non-crime hate incident record only if the event is clearly motivated by intentional hostility and where there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.

To be recorded as a non-crime hate incident or NCHI, the police must judge that any perception of hostility is valid; the complaint must not be irrational, trivial or malicious. This will ensure that the police record NCHIs only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. The code also provides detailed guidance on freedom of expression. Clear case studies to illustrate how this fundamental right should be considered in practice by the police are also set out.

We are confident that the content of the code fully reflects the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Harry Miller v College of Policing, which was handed down in December 2021. The court found that the recording of these incidents is lawful but must be subject to more robust safeguards to ensure that such recording is proportionate and protects free speech. As I have mentioned, this is exactly what the code provides. I particularly thank the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and senior police officers, who have engaged with Home Office officials throughout the drafting process to ensure that this code will work from an operational standpoint.

The College of Policing is also currently updating operational guidance for police on the recording of such incidents to ensure this guidance aligns with the new code. The college will also roll out the requisite training for police officers to ensure that the principles within the code are fully understood and embedded within everyday policing practice. This will ensure that the code is applied consistently by forces across England and Wales.

To reiterate, by taking these steps, we are protecting the vital changes that have been implemented by policing since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We continue to recognise the need to record intelligence that enables the police to intervene to prevent serious harms and future crimes, and we are determined to support the police in protecting the public. However, we have listened to the concerns raised in relation to the fact that this recording has at times gone too far, and we have acted on them. This code will better protect people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression, as well as their personal data, while still ensuring that vulnerable individuals and communities continue to be safeguarded. By bringing forward the code, we have also ensured that the process is subject to much-needed democratic scrutiny. With that, I commend the draft code to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I must begin by acknowledging the role of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who sadly cannot speak in this debate today. My noble friend moved amendments, which I supported, to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the autumn of 2020. We sought to make the Secretary of State responsible for determining five things in particular: first, the basis on which the record of the incident is to be kept; secondly, how those sensitive records are to be kept; thirdly, for how long they are to be kept; fourthly, what provisions there would be for review; and, fifthly, to whom and on what basis the information on them might be disclosed.

I remind the Committee that, until now, there has been no formal basis to ensure a proper system for selecting and recording what is to be logged, what personal data are to be kept, or when, if ever, the matter is to be reviewed. Nor was there any consistent basis as to when the subject would be given the opportunity, if at all, to respond. This code of practice, made pursuant to what is now the Act, is therefore the first such code of practice on this important matter. Having read it with care, I commend it to the Committee and believe we should approve it. It addresses all our core points and it is good to have it on a proper statutory basis.

Looking forward, however, there are a number of things. We must keep the code of practice’s application under review. I understand that the number of reports which are now on record runs well into six figures—a very large number. Remember that the subjects have committed no crime, but in many cases their names have been recorded and remain recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

I have a specific question for the Minister regarding family courts. As he will know, we get disclosures of police records in family courts. About 80% of the cases that we see in family courts have domestic abuse allegations made. We also get disclosure of police callouts. If there are non-crime hate incidents, my understanding from reading the code is that they could, at the discretion of a chief constable, be included in the enhanced DBS check. Am I right? My assumption is that if it is relevant, it can be disclosed to the family courts. That is the one important question for me, given the nature of the other roles that I do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for participating in this very interesting and important debate, particularly for the supportive and constructive atmosphere in which it has taken place. I reiterate my gratitude to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and to senior police officers who helpfully have ensured that the code was fit for purpose. Its introduction will be another step forward in our effort to embed common-sense policing across the system, while ensuring personal data and the fundamental right to free speech are better protected.

I will begin by responding to the various points raised by noble Lords and commence with those raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank him for his support for the code. On his request relating to forces reporting NCHIs, it is important to avoid creating additional burdens on the police. As I said, NCHIs are vital for building community confidence and ensuring that significant harm and future criminal offences can be averted. The key thing is to ensure that this recording is properly regulated and that personal data is recorded only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. This is precisely what the code does.

I also want to be clear that we will not ask forces to delete all existing records because valuable police intelligence would be lost and, fundamentally, it would not be a proportionate use of police resources to undertake a review of all existing records. However, where these records exist and if in any context they are reviewed—for example, during general policing inquiries for the purposes of an enhanced DBS certificate or when a person makes a subject access request—the code makes it clear that particular care should be taken to review the record before considering disclosure. Part of the consideration will include deciding whether, applying the threshold and processes set out in the code, the record should have been created in the first place. If not, the record should be deleted. Individuals can also seek removal of data held by forces via subject access requests. In addition, any records which no longer have a policing purpose and are older than six years will automatically be deleted in line with force record retention practices.

To address the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to family courts, if a non-crime hate incident meets the threshold to be recorded it might be disclosed to the family and other courts by the police in accordance with the Family Procedure Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules in the usual way.

Various noble Lords raised particular cases in the course of their speeches. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on particular incidents, but I can say that the new code is designed to ensure that the police record NCHIs only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so, not simply because somebody is offended.

In his speech, my noble friend Lord Strathcarron raised issues on the role of the College of Policing. I empathise entirely with much of what he said, and his points were echoed by other noble Lords in the Committee. The Home Office is working very closely with the College of Policing to ensure that its authorised professional practice accurately reflects the contents of the new code. Much of the content of my noble friend’s speech was correct.

In the same vein, I welcome my noble friend Lord Leicester’s speech supporting the code of practice. To be clear, the college will publish operational guidance documents for the police on how to deal with the many different types of crimes and incidents, which will be known collectively as the authorised professional practice. It will be considered the official source of professional practice for policing. As it is vital to forces and will cover a number of technical matters, it important for the college to determine how best to operationalise the content set out in the code. However, we are clear that the college’s guidance must be consistent with the provisions and principles in the code before the Committee today, which will have statutory effect once it is approved by Parliament. That means that when the police are taking relevant decisions, they must give due consideration to what the code says.

The college has recently consulted on the draft updated version of the APP, which has been amended to ensure that it aligns with the principles set out the code. It is currently considering the responses received and will make any necessary changes before the code comes into effect. The college will then publish the final, updated version of the operational guidance, once the code is approved by Parliament, which will take account of the points raised during the consultation.

On my noble friend’s point about training for officers, the College of Policing is responsible for determining the training requirements for forces and has developed an e-briefing pack which will be made available one week before the updated guidance enters into effect. The College of Policing will also communicate with forces, via chief constables, about the changes prior to the code and the updated operational guidance coming into effect.

I will take away the point raised about Article 10 training and raise it with the college.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Of the issues he raises, I will just address the question of how the code interrelates with DBS checks. This code does not prohibit disclosure of non-crime hate incident personal data as police information on an enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service—the DBS. This is for two main reasons. First, NCHIs are simply one form of police intelligence that sits alongside many others—missing persons data, anti-social behaviour, unproven allegations of sexual assault and so on. They exist in line with the police’s common law powers to prevent crime. There are circumstances where police non-conviction information of various kinds will be considered for disclosure in enhanced DBS checks used in relation to roles which involve close working with vulnerable adults or children. Maintaining this regime is essential for safeguarding the rights of others, particularly the most vulnerable.

Secondly, the rules surrounding disclosure of this type of data are already governed by statutory disclosure guidance produced by the Home Office. Non-crime hate incident intelligence is not an exceptional form of police intelligence; it is simply a type of non-crime incident data, collected by the police to prevent crime, hence why it is covered in the same statutory guidance. This statutory disclosure guidance has been tested by the courts, and assists chief officers of police in making fair, proportionate and consistent decisions in determining when local police information should be included in enhanced criminal record certificates. Singling out this category of police data for non-disclosure would be inconsistent with the principles set out in the statutory guidance and probably unnecessary and disproportionate.

The safeguards in the statutory disclosure guidance are very robust. Should a chief officer consider that information is relevant to the purpose for which the check is sought, it ought to be disclosed in line with the guidance and the applicant invited to make representations. Only in cases where there is no room for doubt that the information should be disclosed should a decision to disclose be taken without first giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations. Should the decision to disclose be confirmed following any representations, that information will be included on the certificate that is sent to the applicant only. The applicant also has a right to appeal that disclosure through the independent monitor who considers cases where an individual believes that information disclosed within a DBS enhanced criminal records certificate is either not relevant to the purpose that the check is to be used for, or that it ought not be disclosed. The safeguards therefore balance the rights of job applicants and those of vulnerable people they might have contact with.

Alongside the existence of this strict statutory disclosure guidance, I can reassure your Lordships further. DBS records suggest that, in any event, it is rare for non-crime police information of any sort to appear on an enhanced criminal records certificate supplied to a potential employer. This type of information featured in only 0.1% of the 3.9 million enhanced checks issued by the DBS between April 2019 and March 2020. It is imperative that we do not set an unhelpful precedent by legislating in a way that undermines the police’s ability to build intelligence on possible offending and risks to life more broadly.

The first of the two questions raised by my noble friend Lord Bourne was in relation to the cost of this scheme. Information is published in the economic note on the code on the GOV.UK website. At paragraph 19, there is an explanation of the costs:

“Costs related to this are estimated at £9,200 in the central scenario and cover 10 per cent of chief inspectors and 1 per cent of sergeants being required to read the update”.


My noble friend will see that paragraph 21 states:

“The range of estimated costs vary from the central estimate of £9,200 with a low estimate of £3,500, and a high estimate of £0.4 million”.


A careful analysis has been made of the potential costs and the time taken to consider the code. I hope that that addresses the cost question.

During the debate, my noble friend Lord Bourne and a number of other noble Lords raised a question about consultation. This, of course, is the issue that was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As I mentioned earlier, the Government consulted relevant policing stakeholders, including the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and senior police officers. The code is designed to be used by the police on a day-to-day basis, so it is right that we consulted them. Let me be clear that extensive legal and operational nuances were considered during the drafting of the code. These nuances were worked through with experts in the policing, data protection and legal fields, and the Government are confident that this is the right approach for such a specialised code.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

I accept what the Minister said and thank him for it, but I was keen to find out why the feedback was not published.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will make inquiries in relation to that and write to my noble friend.

I turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We were all shocked and saddened by the offending to which she was exposed that she described to the Committee. It is the Government’s view that the code takes particular care in relation to vulnerable individuals. The examples it gives are designed to be examples of non-criminal offences. The matters which were described by the noble Baroness were criminal offences, and the police will follow other guidance if an actual crime has occurred. The incident at Euston which she described sounded to me like an offence of assault at the very least.

The scope of the code is limited to non-crime hate instances. The examples in the text are hyperlinked and are used to illustrate non-crime hate incidents. The code states that,

“where the behaviour of the subject falls short of criminal conduct but may later be evidence of a course of criminal conduct”

the threshold to record a non-crime hate incident may be met. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness.

I believe I have addressed the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I commend the draft code to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Fishing Industry: Visas for Foreign Workers

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK’s fishing industry is in turmoil given the Government’s decision to implement a new visa scheme immediately, potentially leaving it short of workers. Why are they doing it? Fishing businesses are waiting weeks for the Home Office to process skilled worker visas. Is it not more sensitive to business viability to wait before implementing the scheme while the Home Office sorts the scheme and itself out? Could the English language requirement for the visa, for example, be made more sensible and reasonable? The UK’s valuable and vital fishing industry is going to be put at risk by this high-handed action by the Government. Are they going to act to sort it out, or refuse to listen to the legitimate concerns of the fishing industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

Since the original Question was answered in the other place by Miss Dines, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to stakeholders to inform them of the details of the generous support package which was communicated today to industry leaders and stakeholders. The package is designed to help producer organisations and individual businesses in the seafood sector understand the immigration system and to offer Home Office premium expedited services and products at no cost. It includes: hosting an initial familiarisation session for key leads; working with our commercial partners to ensure that there is sufficient English language testing capacity at locations where workers could be recruited; working with our commercial partners to ensure that workers can access visa application centres to give biometrics; and, once a sponsor licence is received, expediting the decision-making process for no extra charge. Once visa applications are received from workers, expediting the visa decision-making process will also be at no additional charge. Our service standard is 15 working days, but we will endeavour to make decisions in eight to 10 days. We will also appoint a dedicated point of contact in UK Visas and Immigration in relation to these matters.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the record of this Government and the Tory party is that they talk about how they defend the fishing industry, yet over the last few years they have seemed determined to destroy it. Why does a vessel need a different crew when it fishes within territorial limits from the one it needs when it fishes beyond them? This seems to be red tape, as does the scheme the Minister just explained. This industry has been on its knees, and we need it to thrive—surely we need to change the way that this operates altogether.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It has been the long-standing position of this Government and previous ones that foreign nationals coming to work in the UK—be that on land or in our waters—should comply with the immigration system when doing so. I do not believe that this is a controversial proposition, and the fishing industry is no exception. This House and the other place legislated to rectify and clarify the position in Section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act. The action that the noble Lord complains about is merely the implementation of those provisions, which have been approved by Parliament.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, a week last Thursday, a good friend of mine in Orkney rang me in some distress. He runs a crab fishing business with two vessels, with several thousand crab creels at the bottom of the north Atlantic. The decision made by the Home Office, which was effective that day, meant he had no way of going and servicing those creels and no way of bringing them in. There is no space on the dock for him to land them if he could bring them in, but if he went to get them with his crew, he would be subject to a potential £20,000 fine per crew. He applied many weeks ago for the skilled worker visas and they are still being processed, so today’s letter was not received with great cheer. Can the Government make a special dispensation for Orkney crab businesses to carry on fishing in their traditional waters, which are far off in the north Atlantic but count as inshore due to three tiny uninhabited islands? If they were discarded from the calculation around inshore waters, an important traditional industry for Orkney would be allowed to survive.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I know that the noble Lord is a doughty campaigner on these issues. Indeed, we have previously exchanged views on this. I am happy to look at the suggestion he raises, but it is right that the fishing industry should be able to utilise domestic labour where possible and use the skilled workers visa route to employ foreign nationals if necessary within 12 nautical miles. I am afraid that it is not within the department’s ability to change the geography of the waters around Orkney, but I will certainly look at the matter he raises and write to him about it.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, on Thursday 13 April, the Home Office announced that the scheme to allow visas for workers in aquaculture and offshore renewable industries would now cease for the fishing industry with immediate effect. This caused both outrage and chaos among fishermen, who are now to be classed as skilled workers, unlike seasonal agricultural workers. The immediate cessation of the visa system for the fishing industry came as a total shock. Why was this announcement so sudden, and why was it made during the Easter Recess, producing a catastrophic impact?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. It cannot have come as a total shock because we debated the provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act when it passed through Parliament, so the industry had a clear indication at that point of the Government’s intention and direction of travel. Turning to the noble Baroness’s substantive point, I point out that there are fundamental differences between fishing and the agricultural sectors. The agricultural scheme is seasonal and temporarily provides low-skilled labour for peak seasons in roles that are generally not eligible for skilled worker visas. The fishing industry, by contrast, operates all year round, and the occupations are eligible for skilled worker visas.

Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for bringing this regret Motion. She set out the reasons for doing so in her characteristically thorough way, and I will try not to repeat her points—but she has been so thorough. Nevertheless, I will set out the case as quickly as I can.

This SI creates a new category of STHF called the “residential holding room”. It appears that this has been created specifically for Manston detention centre, for which, as a non-residential STHF, the previous time limit was 24 hours. This SI changes the time limit to 96 hours, or four days. Additionally, the Secretary of State can extend this. Despite this being close to the five-day limit for residential STHFs, there are significant differences in the minimum conditions, which it is worth setting out. There is no requirement to allow migrants to have access to the internet or to send and receive correspondence, and there is no requirement to fund migrants to correspond with legal advisers, the court system or the UN Refugee Council. It is also unclear whether face-to-face visits are provided for, or whether detainees have the right to meet their legal advisers. There is also no requirement to have separate sleeping quarters for men and women—this was mentioned—or for minors to be housed in separate sleeping quarters, away from unrelated detainees. There are also reduced requirements for health-risk reporting by health staff.

The Government have defended the new rules, stating that the new category of STHF is needed because Manston is a “unique” facility that requires “bespoke” time limits and arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that it is indeed unique, in that there are no plans to extend RHRs to other sites in the future? Both my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised this question, and I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation that this will not be extended.

We heard that stays in Manston have been confirmed to be much longer than the 24-hour limit—up to a month, according to the Home Office. I understand that there are exceptional circumstances and that the Government are in a difficult situation in many ways. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will some of the detainees at Manston who are being accommodated there for up to a month be entitled to phone calls, internet and gender-separated sleeping quarters, as they are in other facilities in which they are allowed to stay for only five days?

Also, given the reports of dozens of cases of diphtheria in Manston last year, and warnings from health officials that cases were spreading within migrant facilities, do the Government believe that the new requirements for health reporting in Manston will be enough to protect detainees’ health? The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised this question at Oral Questions today, and clearly there is concern about this matter. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, compared the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in another Oral Question today, about the ideals of the Council of Europe and the ECHR—and here we are, talking about the practicalities of dealing with a difficult situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned Eric, Lord Avebury, whom I am proud to claim as a noble kinsman. I remember many years in this House when he unremittingly raised the concerns of refugees—he may well be looking down on us in this debate now.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds raised an interesting idea, pointing out that quite soon we will deal with the Illegal Migration Bill, which may be an opportunity for this House, or perhaps the opposition parties, to investigate this SI and similar ones and to give them more thorough scrutiny. I was interested in that suggestion, and I will consider whether my party wants to take that further.

The questions have been set out thoroughly by my noble friend and other noble Lords, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing this debate before the House. Clearly, these are important rules, and it is important that they get an airing and that the views of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are considered in this forum. The debate obviously follows concerns about the new rules expressed in that report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I will endeavour to answer them in the course of my speech and to address the questions of the previous contributors.

I will first put these new rules into context. Since 2018 we have, sadly, seen an enormous increase in the numbers of people choosing to put their lives into the hands of people smugglers and enter the UK unlawfully, after crossing the channel in small boats. We will all be aware that last year some 45,755 people crossed the channel, seeking to enter the country illegally. That figure was 60% higher than in 2021. We know that the estimates for this year range between 65,000 and 85,000. We also know that 51% of those 45,755 who arrived last year arrived in August, September and October, with 8,631 in August alone. The Manston facility in Kent was opened specifically to provide secure processing and security checks for those small-boat arrivals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness responds, I asked a question about DBS checks. I wonder whether the Minister is able to answer it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly. It remains my understanding that those who have dealings with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would be the subject of DBS checks. Whether it is the case that all of those working at the Manston site have DBS checks—those working with adults—I cannot answer at this point, but I would anticipate that is the case. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness in respect of that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will understand that vulnerable adults need safeguarding as well—it is much wider that children.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course; I entirely accept that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has spoken, all of whom I think have deepened the arguments and reminded noble Lords what is at stake here. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out the Government’s case. I suspect he did not manage to answer all the questions, so I would be very grateful if he could look through Hansard and write to everybody who spoke in answer to those questions.

Ports and Airports: Queues

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce queues at ports and airports for United Kingdom citizens returning to the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

The Government have an ambitious vision for the future UK border, which will put in place the world’s most effective and secure border system. We are already using automation and trialling other technologies to improve fluidity and minimise queues for all arriving passengers, without compromising on our number one priority: the security of the border.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

Last year we had the absurdity, particularly at holiday times, of having to queue to get back into our own country. Can the Government guarantee that this year at holiday times we will not have that indignity?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid I simply do not agree with the picture that the noble Lord paints. Border Force plans extensively at both local and regional levels to ensure the smoothest possible journey for all passengers, with over 90% of passengers processing through the UK border in 30 minutes or less. I remind the noble Lord that there are, on average, 144 million crossings each year at the UK border. An estimated 86% of those passengers who travel through the UK border are eligible to use the automated e-passport gates, which are currently our automated solution for processing arriving passengers.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, it was impossible not to notice what an efficient job members of the Armed Forces did when they replaced members of Border Force during the recent strike period. Indeed, some passengers are rather hoping there might be more strikes over the busy summer period. But that to one side, this is not a job for members of our Armed Forces. The MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—rules are very clear that members of the Armed Forces should be used only in extremis. Can my noble friend reassure me that contingency plans are in place to ensure that this does not happen again?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Well, I thank the noble Lord for his generous remarks about the effectiveness with which the contingency plans to deal with strikes in the Border Force succeeded in ensuring adequate—indeed, efficient—flow through the border. I can reassure him that there are certainly no plans, in a non-strike scenario, for members of the Armed Forces to replace members of Border Force. It might assist the noble Lord to know that we have in place plans to further digitise and automate the border, such that in due course the operation of e-gates will be completed solely by facial recognition and there should be no need to place your passport on the e-gate. Ultimately, we wish to simply use facial recognition alone, without the need for an e-gate. But these are, of course, all in the future.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

A week ago, I suggested to the Minister that a short-term fix, at least, would be to have a separate fast-track queue for British citizens, as distinct from EU citizens. The Minister said they were included because they were “our friends”. However, the friendship is not reciprocated, and we have many friends around the world. I put it to the Minister again: why can we not have a separate fast-track line for British citizens?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I say, and as I said to the noble Baroness on the last occasion, we take the view that it is more efficient in terms of flow for all the categories that are allowed to use the e-gate to do so. That includes our friends in America, the Five Eyes nations, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They may all use the e-gates and this accelerates the flow through our airports. There is nothing to be gained in the view of the Home Office by providing lanes on the basis that the noble Baroness adumbrates. I can reassure her that we are not in the business of retaliating when countries wish to include British nationals in a separate queue.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in the meantime, while we wait for the nirvana which the Minister has outlined—I have waited for well over an hour just to get through an e-gate—one of the things that could be done is to improve the software so that you do not have to attempt once, twice, three times in order to get your passport to work. The number of failures in that system is so great that it is, in fact, creating queues artificially. As the Minister will know, now that 10 year- olds can use the e-gates, we are going to have more people queueing, more second attempts, and more third attempts. Will the Government do something about the software while we wait for this nirvana?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hate to point out to the noble Lord that in many cases a failure of the passport to be read by the e-gate is often due to a lack of care taken with the passport by the owner. In many cases, I am afraid the e-gate works perfectly well. In due course, we plan for the e-gates to open simply on recognition of the noble Lord’s face.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

If the system is so good, why have airports introduced a system for people to pay extra to get through quickly, because they experience long delays and the only way they can get through quickly is by paying extra charges to the airport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not know about that; I will look into it. As far as I know, the airport layout is a matter for the owner of the airport. If one pays for some sort of particular access to the border gates, that is something that the airport will do. It is certainly not the case that you can pay Border Force for quicker access across the border.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that at least some of the problems are caused by people with pre-settled and settled status under the EU settlement scheme and that they are exacerbated because there is no physical proof of that; there is only electronic proof, which causes problems with the borders? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and we hope to report on that relatively soon. Does he accept that that is part of the problem?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It should not be a problem, in that holders of EU settled status obviously are entitled to an EU passport, which is capable of being read by our e-gates. Of itself, the existence of EU status is not an issue. The issue arises in only those cases where those people who are entitled to EU settled status do not hold a valid EU passport—and that is a small cohort, but one which we are looking into.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, whatever the causes may be for queues as they arise at ports and airports, the people working there can come under great pressure as those queues and stress levels rise. Can the Minister say what support is being given to those who work at our borders to safeguard their well-being in the midst of all this pressure?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can certainly reassure the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office takes very seriously its obligations for the well-being of its staff both in Border Force and Immigration Enforcement. I will write to her with the detail of that.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I visited Washington last week and, while waiting in the queues, the whole line of US citizens was being marched through and looked after. We ought to be looking after our citizens in the UK in the same way. I finish by saying that, when I came back to the UK, I waited about two minutes to get through the automatic gates and did not have to wait at all.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The issue as I understand it is that the legal framework for border crossing in America requires a face-to-face interaction with every passenger; that is the reason for the generation of queues on the other side of the Atlantic. That is not the case here. We use automation and believe that it delivers a faster and more secure border. As for the Americans allowing their own nationals to circumvent the face-to-face interview, that seems to be the logical corollary of their legal scenario; but that would not be relevant here, given the presence of automation.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Minister has told us that border security is the Government’s number one priority, which, of course, is right. Will he comment on media reports that an email was sent to Customs staff asking them to prioritise passports over checks for drugs and other such illegal items?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have not seen those press reports, but I will certainly look into that and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is there any intention of restricting the right to strike of Border Force officers in the interests of security?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question—yes, under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, Border Force is envisaged as being subject to the legislation and regulations could be made requiring minimum service levels on the part of Border Force staff.

Shamima Begum

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carey of Clifton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, on the grounds of compassion and morality, to reconsider their decision to refuse citizenship to Shamima Begum.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

We are pleased that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has found in favour of the Government in Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to deprive her of British citizenship. It would be inappropriate to comment further, given the potential for further legal proceedings. The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response. I think we all know the circumstances: Shamima Begum was a 15 year-old child when, seduced by a perverted ideology, she ran away from home and ended up as the consort of an ISIS terrorist and, eventually, the mother of three dead babies. Now 25 years of age, her situation has changed since she was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019. Her provisional Bangladeshi citizenship lapsed when she reached the age of 21 and she is now stateless. I would like to ask two questions. First, what consideration has been given to her present situation, as of today? Secondly, does the Minister’s response suggest that security fears trump our moral responsibilities?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his questions. The answer is that in relation to Shamima Begum, as I indicated in my earlier Answer, due to the fact that the litigation may continue I am unable to comment specifically on the facts of that case. However, I can answer more generally that the power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship, as happened in this case, has existed in law for over 100 years. The British Nationality Act allows for the deprivation power to be exercised in two circumstances: first, where the Secretary of State considers that it is conducive to the public good to deprive that person of their British citizenship, generally on national security grounds; and, secondly, in relation to Section 40(3), if British nationality has been obtained by fraud. This power is exercised sparingly and obviously, given the national security nature of these decisions, the content of them is the subject of closed proceedings. It is therefore a matter for particularly careful consideration by the Secretary of State and that was certainly done in the instant case.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, may I press my noble friend on the security aspect? If we continue to refuse citizenship and refuse to put on trial alleged UK terrorists here in this country, are we not just passing the buck to other countries? If every country pursues the same policy, are we not just going to build up vast and insecure camps full of potential terrorists—the breeding ground for the terrorists of tomorrow?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Of course it is not the case, as the noble and right reverend Lord put in his Question, that Shamima Begum’s citizenship was refused. In fact, her citizenship was deprived from her by reason of the decision of the Secretary of State, which was reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and upheld. I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a risk of large camps of people being accrued who had been deprived of their nationality. If I might provide the figures, in 2019 some 27 people were deprived of their nationality; in 2020, it was 10; and, in 2021, it was eight.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked a Question last week relating to the British Government’s position over the use of capital punishment. Widespread comments from all sides of the House indicated that we had no truck with it whatever; quite right too. Since the Minister is not able to comment on a current case—and I respect that—could he ask himself, and assure the House, whether statelessness is not a form of capital punishment, in the sense that it deprives somebody of status forever? If it is for the rest of their lives, is that not just the breathing dead, so should we not be opposed to it on moral grounds and let circumstances dictate what might happen to her if she were brought back? Leaving her where she is is surely inhumane.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the Secretary of State for the Home Office has to evaluate the balance of competing interests. Surely the principal interest and the principal duty of government is to keep the people safe. I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes very seriously its obligations under the UN statelessness convention. Decisions to deprive individuals are taken in circumstances where they would not be left stateless. This applies in all cases where decisions to deprive are made. In all cases, there is further detailed consideration as to the applicability of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to deprivation decisions. The Government are satisfied that all those deprivations have been actions which are compatible with our obligations under that convention.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, would my noble friend reflect that, if a 15 year-old child commits a murder in this country, they remain anonymous? We do not know the name of the person, and he or she is dealt with appropriately. Is that not rather in contradiction to the line that has been taken in this case?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The slight difficulty the noble Lord has is, obviously, the incomplete picture of information, which is, unfortunately, the consequence of the nature of these types of decisions. The evaluation is made at the time of the deprivation decision, which in this case was in 2019. At that stage, the subject of the decision was not a minor, but obviously I cannot venture further into the facts of the case.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what are the implications of this case for the reform of the Prevent strategy?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The reform of the Prevent strategy is clearly an important priority, as discussed on a previous occasion. I do not believe that this particular case has any direct impact on the reformulation of the policy. If the litigation continues, I will come back and address the House further on that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder if noble Lords remember the expression “compassionate conservatism”. Those halcyon days seem long gone, sadly. Shamima Begum has been variously described as a vulnerable, trafficked 15 year-old from Bethnal Green and an ex-IS recruiter. Is the point not, however, that she is our vulnerable, trafficked girl or our ex-IS recruiter? Should she not be brought home to face the music in a British court of law?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Again, I am afraid I cannot comment on the specific facts of Ms Begum’s case. However, I remind the House that the purpose of deprivation proceedings under Section 40(2) of the 1981 Act is to protect the country in relation to issues of national security.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the difficulty the UK had being able to prosecute British people who went to Syria to support ISIS led in part to the counterterrorism Act 2019 and its provisions to prohibit people going to designated terrorist hotspots. Are the Government confident that future circumstances similar to Shamima Begum’s would fall under the provisions of that Act and enable prosecution in the UK?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, it is a very fact-sensitive evaluation on what is an appropriate matter for prosecution. The issue as to whether to deprive someone of British nationality arises in very limited circumstances, as seen in the numbers I cited earlier to the House. I would hope that all the relevant factors are taken into account when making such decisions.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Shamima Begum admitted on the BBC podcast that she willingly chose to join a barbaric, nihilistic, Islamic death cult, so I am not sure about compassion. However, the Minister said that the responsibility is to keep citizens safe. Is he suggesting that the Government cannot keep people safe when there is radicalisation happening in the UK? One reason why the public do not want Ms Begum here is that, after the Manchester Arena bombing report, it seems that the Prison Service and the secret services are not able to keep us safe. Would he say that that is our problem and we should bring her home and not wash our hands of her, not because of compassion but because of moral responsibility on our part to keep people safe, even if there are terrorists among us?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The answer is that, obviously, the primary duty of government is to keep the people safe. Parliament has seen fit to afford to the Secretary of State the power of deprivation of nationality on dual nationals, and that power has sensibly been exercised in the cases to which I have referred and on which I have given the numbers to the House. I do not believe that there is any greater moral equivalence in returning people for trial. The question that arises on the exercise of this power is the issue of national security.