Citizens’ Rights (European Affairs Committee Report)

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions of the Grand Committee, and in particular I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on securing the debate. Clearly, this is a topic that has long been of interest to him. On behalf of the department, I congratulate him on his distinguished term as chairman of the European Affairs Committee and its predecessor body. His scrutiny has of course been very powerful and helpful, and I thank him for that.

Turning to the EU settlement scheme, it will come as no surprise—and many members of the Committee have alluded to this—that the scheme has been a great success. We have gone above and beyond our obligations in the citizens’ rights agreements to protect the rights of European Economic Area and Swiss citizens and their family members to give them a route to settle in the UK. I also understand and fully support the interest in how UK nationals are treated in EU member and the EFTA states.

As we have heard, around 1 million UK nationals live in the European Union, with thousands more UK nationals living in Switzerland and the EEA and EFTA countries. The UK Government continue to work closely with the European Commission and national authorities to ensure the rights of UK nationals in Europe under the agreements are upheld. We also continue to press the European Union for clear communications to UK nationals in the European Union on how they can secure and access their rights.

The United Kingdom publishes more comprehensive statistics on the EU settlement scheme than any EU member state on their equivalent schemes. I want now to share some of these statistics with the Grand Committee. The EUSS is the UK’s largest ever immigration scheme. The latest data, to 30 June, shows there have been 7.4 million EUSS applications, of which 98% have been concluded, and more than 5.6 million people have been granted status. The Government are delighted that so many of our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours have obtained the status they need to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as the Home Secretary set out in her August letter, to which a number of noble Lords referred, it is right and proper that we take steps to maintain the integrity of the scheme, including measures to protect it from abuse.

Despite it being more than two years since the June 2021 application deadline for those resident before the end of the EU exit transition period, the volume of late applications has remained high. Many of the applications in the so-called backlog to which the noble Lord refers are in fact recently made applications. A number of these include applications made by late applicants, such as those joining family members, or from repeat applicants, such as those looking to move from pre-settled to settled status. We received nearly 337,000 such applications in the first six months of this year alone.

We do not publish data on pending applications, but internal figures for applications pending by 31 March indicate that 66% of EUSS applications had been waiting for 90 days or less. That rises to 76% when including applications pending for 180 days or less. The Home Office will make this analysis available in the next published statistics, but no doubt noble Lords who raised the question of whether there was a backlog will ponder them and see that this is a very efficient system. Applications which have been waiting for longer than 180 days are usually due to suitability concerns, such as pending prosecutions.

As noble Lords will be aware, the citizens’ rights agreements oblige us to accept late applications where the person has reasonable grounds for failure to respect the deadline. In the first two quarters of this year, there were on average 18,000 late applications made each month. While the overall refusal rate for the EUSS remains low, at 8%, this is not the case when looking specifically at late applications. For this case type, the refusal rate stands at 47% in the most recently published data. I suggest this reflects the increasing volumes of spurious applications being made to the scheme, with refusals on eligibility grounds in the majority of cases.

I will now set out the recent changes to the EUSS, most of which have been implemented through changes to the relevant Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in particular alluded to the change from 9 August of a person’s reasonable grounds for submitting a late application being assessed at the very first stage of the process, known as the validity stage, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, outlined. In practical terms, this means that an individual must show they had reasonable grounds for the delay in making their application as a pre-requisite for making a valid application to the scheme. Only once their application is confirmed as valid are they issued with the certificate of application. That is important because it gives those covered by it the benefits of the citizens’ rights agreements to access temporary protections, such as the right to work in the United Kingdom and claim benefits where eligible. This change in process reduces the scope for speculative applications to the scheme solely to benefit from the temporary protection available until an application is finally determined. It aligns with similar approaches that are already being applied to United Kingdom nationals in EU member states with constitutive systems.

We have also updated our published guidance to provide clear information on how reasonable grounds considerations are now being applied. This is in stark contrast to that adopted in EU member states, where we have been unable to identify equivalent guidance or publicly available information for United Kingdom nationals that matches the comprehensive approach that the United Kingdom has taken in respect of EU citizens. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government continue to urge the European Commission to ensure that member states publish flexible and pragmatic guidance as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for late residency applications so that UK nationals do not encounter difficulties.

As has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we have separately closed two transitional routes which were not required under the citizens’ rights agreements. These are commonly referred to as the Zambrano primary carers and family members of a qualifying British citizen routes. They reflected routes required by European case law, for which provision was made under the EUSS on a transitional basis. After more than four years, it is both appropriate and fair that such individuals should now meet the same family Immigration Rules that apply to other dependants of British citizens.

In addition, we have made changes that prevent illegal entrants from being able to apply as a joining family member under the EUSS. This reinforces our approach to tackling illegal migration and helps to prevent spurious applications being made by individuals seeking to circumvent our standard immigration processes.

On an issue that has been raised by a number of noble Lords in respect of the removal of administrative review, on 7 September, we laid changes to the Immigration Rules to remove the ability for EUSS and EUSS family permit applicants to apply for an administrative review. A right of appeal will, of course, be maintained as the mechanism for individuals to challenge the decision, and to meet our obligations under the citizens’ rights agreements. The changes will apply to all relevant decisions made on or after 5 October this year. We have gone above and beyond our citizens’ rights obligations in offering both a right of appeal and administrative reviews for EUSS applicants. It is therefore now the right and fair course that we bring the EUSS in line with other immigration routes, where a dual right of redress does not exist.

On a question raised by many noble Lords on the issue of the implementation of the changes in the light of the judicial review brought by the IMA, in the statement of changes in Immigration Rules taking effect in August, we also introduced amendments to that effect. The High Court found that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a person with pre-settled status under the EUSS does not expire for failure to make a second application to the scheme. The changes to the Immigration Rules reflect the fact that pre-settled status holders will have this status automatically extended by two years, if they have not obtained settled status ahead of the date when their pre-settled status was due to expire.

The extension will be applied automatically. There will be no need for individuals to contact the Home Office and they will be notified once the extension has been applied. We have already completed the extensions for those whose pre-settled status was due to expire in September—this month—and future extensions will be applied at the start of each month, to those whose status expires the following month. This ensures that nobody with pre-settled status will lose their immigration status through the lack of a second application to the EUSS. Should the Home Office find that an individual no longer meets the eligibility criteria for pre-settled status, we will take steps to cancel or curtail it—but of course those decisions could carry with them a right of appeal.

Our objective is to encourage those eligible for settled status, as has been outlined, to obtain it as soon as possible. This is, of course, permitted by the judgment. Since March this year we have been sending reminders to apply to those who have held pre-settled status for almost five years, and we strongly encourage people to apply for settled status as soon as they are eligible. This ties back to the point so eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in respect of wanting to know with certainty what your status is.

I am extremely pleased to see thousands of people moving from pre-settled to settled status each month as a result of those communications. To 30 June this year, 608,380 people had made that conversion. Looking to the future, we intend to take steps automatically to switch as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status, without them needing to make a further application. To do this, we plan to undertake automated checks of pre-settled status holders against government-held information—for example, in respect of their ongoing continuous residence in the UK. We aim to have this automated process in place during 2024.

The judicial review judgment also concluded that a pre-settled status holder acquires a right of permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically, once the conditions for it are met. The planned process to automatically switch eligible pre-settled status holders to settled status, alongside encouraging applications for settled status by those eligible for it, will support the implementation of this aspect of the judgment.

I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in relation to the detail of that policy. We note that the automatic conversion of pre-settled to settled status is not a requirement of the judgment, just as EU member states are not required automatically to issue permanent residency cards to UK nationals. However, in response to the noble Earl’s question on our engagement with the independent monitoring authority, I stress that we have been engaging with it on matters of implementation. We would suggest that the method of the automatic conversion I have just described is not unclear in any way, and that our implementation of the judgment is abundant for any who wish to see it. We have sought feedback and views on our planning and will, of course, continue productive engagement with the IMA and other interested stakeholders as we take forward steps to operationalise the remaining aspects of the judgment.

I turn briefly to the issue concerning the refusals backfill, described by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as the database error debacle. I perhaps would not agree with that description, although I can understand his concerns. As set out in the Home Secretary’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, all those affected were sent an email or postal notification of their refusal decision at the time the decision was made, using the contact details they had supplied. Individuals are able to update their contact details if they need to. The Home Secretary’s letter was quite clear that maintaining a certificate of application on those accounts, rather than showing a refusal decision, was not due to an error but to allow individuals to maintain temporary protection of rights during any administrative review or appeal. This is because, prior to 19 April 2022, the digital status system did not have the capability to reflect that an individual had an administrative review or appeal pending.

At the time the decision to pause uploading refusal decisions was made, the position of the UK Government was that late applications did not attract temporary protections under Article 18(3) of the withdrawal agreement. Therefore, the volume of individuals impacted by the decision was relatively small and finite, importantly. When the numbers affected subsequently grew following the Government’s decision to extend temporary protections to those applying after 30 June 2021, we maintain it was better to ensure that an individual could access their rights while an administrative review or appeal was ongoing, rather than deny those people access to their rights should they challenge the decision.

With respect to timings, on 19 April 2022, a systems change was implemented to allow accounts to maintain a certificate of application where a refusal decision was challenged. As changes to our systems are not implemented retrospectively, a separate exercise was required for cases decided between 27 June 2021 and 19 April 2022. The exercise was not run before 18 January due to the complexity of the work and other pressing departmental priorities, such as the work to implement the Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine scheme. I hope that level of detail answers the questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Turning briefly to the question of the DWP overpayments, it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that a power should be exercised by the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions to waive overpayment debt for individuals affected by the refusals backfill exercise. I remind noble Lords that under legislation passed by Parliament, the Department for Work and Pensions has the legislative power to recover overpayments of universal credit under Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act regardless of how the overpayment was caused. Of course, the Secretary of State has a duty to protect public funds and will seek to recover debt in all circumstances where it is reasonable.

I will touch very briefly on some further question asked by noble Lords, in particular the question about proof of status and whether that should be in documentary form. In response to that oft-expressed request in this debate for physical documents, I respectfully reiterate that we are working towards a border and immigration system that is digital by default. Immigration status in the form of an e-visa is part of this, as of course is the rolling out of the electronic travel authorisation programme. The citizens’ rights agreement explicitly allows for status to be provided in digital form.

I appreciate that I have covered some of the points raised by noble Lords; there are many others but I notice the time. I will, of course, write to noble Lords to update them on those detailed questions that I have had not had time to answer. Again, I thank the noble Earl for raising this very interesting debate.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I am not sure that he clearly explained—it may be due to the heat in this room and my head—why the Government are encouraging people to apply again. That, I am afraid, did not come over clearly—I felt the Minister glided over that issue. If he did cover it, I will obviously check the report, but if he did not, could he possibly write to me?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I think I covered it, but rather than explain it again now, given the hour, I will certainly put it in writing for the noble Baroness, for clarity.

Illegal Migration Update

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the Home Office has the judgment of Mr Justice Chamberlain in the decision of which the noble Baroness speaks. The High Court found that Kent County Council was in breach of its obligations under the Children Act in relation to housing these children. It found that the contingency use of Home Office hotels was acceptable for short periods in an emergency where the facilities of Kent were overwhelmed. It was his view that the periods for which these children were in the hotels had exceeded the permissible period. Obviously, the Home Office is considering that recent judgment. As the noble Baroness observed, the practice has been for Kent to take responsibility for these children. Clearly, the national framework is being used and will continue to be used to redistribute the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children around the country.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, small boats week was, unfortunately, a fiasco—it would have been a hoot were it not so incredibly serious when what we need is competent administration. The real problem is the Government’s prioritisation of gesture politics and grandstanding over hard work on dealing with this getting on for 200,000 backlog.

In his response to the Front-Benchers, the Minister said that funding would remain for asylum support. During the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, Members from across the House warned—I remember that my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed in particular raised the issue—that international aid money could not be spent on people who are not asylum seekers if the Government refuse to admit them to the asylum process, which is what the Illegal Migration Act provides. Are the Government ever going to implement the Illegal Migration Act, or will they kick it into touch as they did with part of the Nationality and Borders Act, whose provisions on group 2 refugees have not been implemented? One wonders why we spent so many hours debating this—including till 4.15 am, as I remember —when the Government were acting all macho that this legislation had to go through. I would be intrigued to find out whether they will implement the Act not only because of these issues about budget but also because, as we warned, possibly hundreds of thousands of people will be left in limbo. It is an unworkable Act. What are the Government going to do?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm for the noble Baroness that we will certainly commence the Act. She will be happy, I am sure, to see statutory instruments commencing various provisions very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have already answered that question. I am afraid I simply do not accept the noble Baroness’s point that there is conflict between the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. The point is this: certain categories of data are simply not collected and this falls into that category. Lots of data is held, as it will not surprise the noble Baroness to learn.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I have one last try at this? Does the Home Office record and hold data on the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are triaged in Kent and who are placed in hotels? A simple yes or no will do.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I have already made clear, the data requested on a child in hotels could not be provided as it comes from operational databases that have not been quality assured.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am happy to provide that reassurance and explanation. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their thoughts on Clause 60.

Clause 60 clarifies and modernises Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, which relates to the credibility of asylum claimants. First, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this provision will not be relevant to those who meet the conditions in Clause 2, as their asylum claims will of course be inadmissible, but it will be relevant to other asylum seekers. It is appropriate that we use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to address this issue for the reasons that I will come to in a moment. The clause puts it beyond doubt that destroying, altering, disposing of or failing to produce any identity document—not just a passport—is behaviour that should be viewed by decision-makers as damaging a claimant’s credibility.

Secondly, the clause modernises Section 8 to reflect the fact that mobile phones and electronic devices play a much more significant role in people’s daily lives in storing relevant documents and information than they did 20 years ago. We have therefore expressly provided that refusing to disclose information, such as a passcode which would enable access to a person’s mobile phone or other electronic device, should be damaging to their credibility. In so doing, we are reading across provisions that exist in criminal law in relation to Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and equivalent provisions in Scotland. I hope noble Lords agree that it would be inconsistent to treat what would amount to the effective concealment of a document, by not providing access, stored electronically any differently from the concealment of a physical document.

Finally, the clause brings Section 8 of the 2004 Act up to date by clarifying that the provisions relating to documents apply where those documents are stored in electronic form.

Clause 14 is a separate part of the Bill and introduces new powers. We already have some powers to seize devices, but Clause 14 introduces new powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, observed, and as we discussed in Committee on the relevant group of amendments. Clause 60 will of course apply no matter which power of seizure is used.

I hope that I have provided the requested clarity, and I further hope that Clause 60 will stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those explanations. It may be that my brain has gone to cotton wool—I will read his response in Hansard to try to see the whole picture. At the moment, I cannot see the overall coherence of this scheme.

The Minister is going to send me scurrying off to look up the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, of which I have just a vague memory. I am sure that colleagues on other Benches will know its provisions off the top of their heads, but is there any sort of reasonable suspicion trigger, or some such, in that Act, about investigating crime and suspected terrorism? I do not know, but my fear with all of this is of mission creep. I am not sure whether the Minister has fully removed that fear, but I will carefully read his response and I am sure that, with his normal courtesy, if I have any follow-up questions he will deal with them in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not have that figure to hand, but I will find out and write to my noble friend.

By tackling the backlog and processing asylum claims in a timely manner, we will address the issues raised by many noble Lords in relation to Amendment 133. I am sure we will return to these issues in the coming weeks and months, but for now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although I feel that he slightly demolished his own argument. He claims that the asylum system and working should be insulated from each other. The logic of that is that no asylum seeker would ever be allowed to work, yet government policy has the extremely unsatisfactory rule that they can apply after 12 months to a restricted list. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the case that he knows of took another 12 months to get permission—yet more bureaucracy. All we ever get from the Home Office is more bureaucracy. The Minister cannot have his cake and eat it. If he does not think that asylum seekers should ever work, why does that government policy exist at the moment? It is very unsatisfactory.

Noble Lords have made some very good points. Like others, I much appreciated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who referred to “Conservative” principles of self-help and self-improvement. I would say that they are not uniquely Conservative, but they are also Conservative. That is why this policy makes sense to most people from all directions—on all Benches. It would help us have an orderly and well-run asylum system, as well as giving people the dignity and hope that have been mentioned.

I am afraid that I completely disagree with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. The policy would not encourage people to disappear. By keeping people plugged into the system, and assuming that they are paying tax and national insurance and are known to the authorities—it would help if we had labour market inspectors—it would be easier to keep track of them. If they do not succeed with their asylum claim, they should be removed from the country. I am trying not to get even more grumpy than I am after many days on this Bill—normally I am a completely ungrumpy person—but the suggestion that I, or anyone else on these Benches, want some kind of free-for-all where anybody can come, there are no borders or regulations and so on, is completely untrue. I totally deny that suggestion; indeed, I rather resent it. I am sorry to say that I found the noble Baroness’s contribution valiant but unconvincing.

It is certainly true that I object to the term “illegal” being used to describe a person. I have long held that view. I do not believe that any person is illegal. You can say, if you must, that they have arrived by illegal routes, but the refugee convention, which, unlike some people, I rather admire, talks about “irregular” arrival because people are allowed to arrive in a country to claim asylum—so they have not made illegal entry either. It is irregular but not illegal. I am a bit of a stickler for terminology, and I stick to that of the refugee convention. I am not sure whether I have to apologise for that, but I do not think so.

I have probably said everything that I can. I think the Government are wrong. I hope a future Government will revisit this issue—not in the manner of the Government of 20 years ago, who withdrew asylum seekers’ right to work—and implement the sense of this kind of provision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Obviously, consultation with local authorities is important—they are the primary consultee set out in Clause 58(2)(a)—but, as the noble Lord will see from paragraph (b), other persons and bodies are also possible consultees. All this information will be fed into the decision to be taken by the Secretary of State in drawing up the regulations, and by this House and the other place in discussing them. It is not just about how many people we can house; it is about the whole network of support and integration that we can provide. As the noble Lord will immediately appreciate, Clause 58(5) is there as an enforcement mechanism for Parliament to ask a Secretary of State why they have permitted the cap to be exceeded. That is the purpose of making the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a statement setting out those breaches. That is the purpose of Clause 58(5). It is not envisaged that the Secretary of State will allow the cap to be exceeded, for the sensible reasons that the noble Lord provides.

I must make some progress. Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seeks significantly to increase the current scope of the UK’s refugee family reunion policy to include additional family members. This amendment needs to be seen in the context of what I submit is already a very generous family reunion policy for bringing families together. Under this policy, we have granted more than 46,000 visas since 2015; that is no small feat, and a fact that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett, seem to have overlooked.

The focus of our refugee family reunion policy is on reuniting core family groups. This is as it should be. It allows immediate family members—that is, the partner and any children aged under 18—of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of a family unit before the sponsor left their country to seek protection. In exceptional circumstances, children over 18 are also eligible.

There are separate provisions in the Immigration Rules to allow extended family members to sponsor children to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances. In addition, refugees can sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them where, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK. There is also discretion to grant leave outside of the Immigration Rules which caters for extended family members where there are compelling compassionate circumstances.

Amendment 129 would routinely extend the policy to cover a person’s parents, their adult unmarried children under the age of 25, and their siblings. Extending family reunion without careful consideration of the implications would significantly increase the number of people who would qualify to come here. We must carefully weigh the impact of eligibility criteria against the pressure that this would undoubtedly place on already strained central government and local services.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s use of the word “impact” triggered me. It would be very interesting to know, when we get the impact assessment— I hope sooner than “in due course”—the costings the Government would expect from something such as my amendment, or indeed my Private Member’s Bill.

I want to draw attention to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned. All the time, the Government imply that those of us who argue for better family reunion, the right to work and not having group 1 and group 2 refugees, are portrayed almost as though we are trying to obstruct the asylum system. Actually, we are trying to front-load it and make it more efficient and streamlined, so that in the end there would not be a backlog of160,000 asylum applications because the system would work better; people would be more integrated and more productive, and would not have to worry all the time about what was happening to their relations.

I am sorry that this has become a bit of a rant but I also have a question. Is the Minister going to cover the point that I felt was not answered in the Government’s response to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? Why do the Government insist on having all these different definitions of family? Is it not all the time adding more complication into the immigration and asylum system? That is not the best way of getting caseworkers to be able to focus efficiently on their job. It means that, all the time, there are backlogs and inefficiency because the Government insist on not doing the rational thing.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I recall debating these topics and the very similar text of the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill at its Third Reading. The reality is that she and I differ on the appropriate numbers that would come in and the resources that would then be necessary to attend them. It is simply a policy decision, and we differ on that.

I turn to Amendments 130 and 131, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. These seek to create routes through which an individual may travel to the UK for the purpose of making a claim for asylum or protection. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope raised a similar point. The Government are clear that those in need of international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. This policy aligns with international law, and indeed with those of previous Governments, including the previous Labour Government. In answer to the question posed by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Purvis and Lord Paddick, that is the fastest route to safety. Such schemes would only add further untold pressure to UK systems.

Amendment 130 defines an eligible applicant as someone who

“is present in a member State of the European Union”.

This underlines the point: EU member states are inherently safe countries with functioning asylum systems. There is therefore no reason why a person should not seek protection in the country concerned. Moreover, this amendment would also encourage more people to make dangerous and unnecessary journeys, including across the Mediterranean, to qualify for a safe passage visa.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, clearly this needs to be looked into and I hear what the noble Baroness says. After the conclusion of the Committee we can have that meeting, explore the issue and I can respond in full. I am certainly not unsympathetic to the points raised.

The benefits of permanent settlement and British citizenship should not be available to those who come to the UK illegally. These clauses serve to underline our core message that if you come to the UK unlawfully, you will not be able to build a life in this country. I commend Clauses 29 to 36 to the Committee and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, our debate on this group has given me a new respect for nationality law, which is at least as confusing as I ever imagined. It has always been a rather “Here be dragons” subject for me; that has been fully confirmed by this debate. I need to try to make sense of my scribbles.

One thing still puzzles me: I do not really understand why the Government are excluding registration for some forms of British citizenship but not for others. I remain bemused by that; I shall have to read exactly what the Minister said in Hansard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, grasped that explanation better than I did.

I have sympathy with the particular issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on registration. I happen to think that there is more commonality with the issue of excluding routes to naturalisation than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wishes to acknowledge or give any quarter to, but on the issue of registration he made some important points. I wish him well in his pursuit of those issues with the Minister, but I also believe that there are serious issues around excluding people from the right to remain and a route to citizenship.

I did not grasp the Minister’s explanation of why the phrase “other international agreements” was taken out by the Government. Why did you—I do not mean the Minister personally; I mean the Government and the Home Secretary—put it in the original draft of the Bill a few months ago and then take it out if it did not meet the tests of clarity and concision? I think that was the Minister’s explanation. I accept that taking out those few words makes the clause more concise, but I do not think that doing so makes it clearer because we are then left wondering how the Government are going to secure compliance with those other international agreements —including the refugee convention, the statelessness conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—which are not referred to in the Bill.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Minister tried to explain that hanging fast to the ECHR was some new discovery by the Government. As I said last week, we tend to find it quite confusing as to when the Government like the ECHR and when they do not. They appear to act rather fast and loose on this subject.

I applaud the probing amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton. I hope that she gets a fruitful meeting with the Minister because, as she and other noble Lords said, this issue seems to be the subject of considerable muddle and is having a severe impact on people’s lives. It is giving them extra anxiety. They have had to leave home and come to this country, but now they are being given the runaround by Home Office staff.

I was left unclear, it has to be said, on the situation raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. What will happen to the dependants of BNO status holders who are having to leave Hong Kong irregularly and perhaps also arrive in this country irregularly? I am not clear whether we are sure about how their welfare and status will be assured. The Minister said that BNOs are not covered by this Bill, but if somebody who is not a BNO but is a dependant of one arrives in this country irregularly, surely they will potentially be subject to the Clause 2 duty to remove.

Also—and almost finally—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, highlighted a very interesting contrast between the Government wanting a duty to remove people but wanting only a discretion to be fair to them in legal and human rights terms. That does not seem very consistent. So I end by saying that I still feel very firmly that the duties under Clause 29 and 35 should be expressed in terms of not a discretion but a duty to obey our international legal obligations under the ECHR and other international treaties that we have signed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can only repeat that the Supreme Court decision in HJ (Iran) and the other documents provided by the UNHCR are not relevant in this context because they do not deal with the same mechanics. Those cases were asylum or protection claims, whereas this deals with the specific statutory category of serious and irreversible harm. Of course, although there may be some crossover in the arguments deployed, ultimately they address a different issue. I cannot provide the type of assurance that the noble and learned Lord seeks, I am afraid.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, if two noble and learned Lords and one learned with a small “l” noble Lord—if I may call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that—are frowning and struggling to understand what the Minister has just said, there is no hope for me. I must confess that I found it pretty difficult to understand. I would be most grateful if the Minister could put the letter that he has promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in the Library so that the rest of us can try to understand.

It would be of great concern if the worry that the noble and learned Lord raised was to be shrouded in doubt in terms of the status of the Supreme Court case, which said that you cannot expect a gay person to have to live in a closeted fashion—that is, you would expect them to be able to live openly for a country to be considered safe. If that precedent were to be put in any doubt, it would have serious implications, as would the concerns that were raised about healthcare; I am not sure what point we have precisely got to on that subject.

The overall concern, if I may put it like this, is if it ain’t broke there is no need to fix it. The courts seem to have got a handle on these issues, and what the Government are doing with their word salad is creating quite a lot of instability and confusion in something that is being handled pretty competently by the courts. They have reached some position on how to assess issues such as risk, foreseeability and reality of risk—and here the Government come, like a bull in a china shop, trying to upset and disturb all that. I am rather minded to think that the Government would do better just to leave it to the courts.

The Minister was not very persuasive in his argument that the wording in the Bill is necessary to stop projections of hypothetical risk. Surely, the courts can be relied on to filter out fantastical imaginings when they assess the reality of risk. I am afraid I found his responses on this group pretty unpersuasive. He keeps coming back to this hoary old chestnut that the use of detention is necessary to ensure swift removal. The idea that this Government are going to ensure swift removal of a lot of people strikes most people living in the real world, to use that phrase again, as for the birds. However, with that said, I shall not oppose the clause standing part.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that, in that context, the Assembly had competence to consider those issues. However, in the context of the overall Bill, this measure deals with immigration. Therefore, for the reasons I gave, the measures fall within the competence of the United Kingdom Government.

The current rate of dangerous and unnecessary small boat channel crossings represents a clear and present threat to public order, justifying our invoking the relevant provisions of ECAT. They risk lives and place unprecedented and unsustainable pressure on our public services—housing, health, education, welfare and others. The Government are right to take the necessary measures in the Bill to remove the clear opportunities to misuse our modern slavery protections in order to frustrate the duty to remove in Clause 2. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee and invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, jumps up, could I ask the Minister something? Unless I was being inattentive, in which case I apologise, I am not sure that he answered the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow, about the Windsor Framework—which is to be known as the Northern Ireland protocol—the duties in it and the application of EU law. He mentioned the trafficking directive and the victims directive. How is the Bill compatible with those obligations in Northern Ireland? If I have got it wrong, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will correct me.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I am happy to confirm that the noble Baroness is right.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the High Court judgment of 21 December 2022, what plans they have to allow EU citizens who hold pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (1) to keep their rights under the Withdrawal Agreement when that status expires, and (2) to automatically obtain permanent residence rights without making a second application to that scheme.

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

We have informed the High Court that we do not wish to pursue an appeal against the judgment. This avoids continuing uncertainty for those affected. We are working to implement the judgment as swiftly as possible, and we will provide a further update in due course.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is nearly three months since the High Court found that the Government’s interpretation of the withdrawal agreement was wrong in law in the way it constructed the EU settlement scheme for EEA citizens to get a permanent residence right. I suggest that the Government need to undertake some consultations with parties and groups with relevant expertise, such as the3million and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, to ensure that any changes now uphold—rather than undermine, as in the past—the rights under the withdrawal agreement. Are the Government undertaking such consultation? Can the Minister clarify what “in due course” really means?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I came across an article that said:

“The longer the queue, the worse the administrative confusion, the greater the incentive is for racketeers to target their efforts on Britain. There is a direct link between Government incompetence in managing asylum cases and the surge in applications to stay here.”


This was written in 2000 by William Hague, then the leader of the Conservative Party and now of course the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. He was criticising the then Labour Government, but, in the ministerial letter we received, referring to plans to

“clear the legacy initial decision asylum backlog by the end of 2023”,

there was a complete failure to acknowledge that this legacy was created by a Tory-run Home Office, which has never got a grip over the last 13 years. Nearly 100,000 people have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over six months—that is four times the number in 2019. We need a minimum service level in the Home Office.

We all want to see an end to dangerous channel crossings, but the Bill and the hullabaloo surrounding it are just more of the same gimmicky gesture politics, not the practical and sustainable solution that is actually needed. The Bill is not only unworkable but illegal and immoral. It treats people as criminals simply for seeking refuge. In the article I quoted from, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said:

“We believe Britain has a moral as well as a legal duty to welcome here people who are fleeing for their lives.”


That “we” was the Conservative Party 23 years ago. No wonder that even some Tory MPs are now upset at the xenophobic and dehumanising rhetoric and intentions to breach the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In her enthusiasm to make the demonisation of refugees an election selling point, the Home Secretary appears to have broken the Ministerial Code: a fundraising email sent in her name to Conservative Party supporters disgracefully tarred civil servants as part of an “activist blob” that has “blocked” the Government from trying to stop the small boat crossings.

Why is the Bill needed, when the ink is barely dry on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was supposed to be the magic solution that would stop the boats? This plan will punish the victims of persecution and human trafficking, but it will do nothing to stop the evil criminal gangs who profit from these small boat crossings. Not only are the majority of men, women and children who cross the channel doing so because they are desperate to escape war, conflict and persecution; most of them are in fact granted the protection they need. Four out of 10 people arriving on boats last year were from just five countries, with an asylum grant rate of over 80%—the Home Office recently decided to fast-track applications from a similar list of countries. How does the plan to deem inadmissible any claims from people who arrive on small boats from countries such as Afghanistan or Syria accord with these facts?

The only way to stop these dangerous crossings is to create safe and legal routes. The Government talk about such routes, but where and what are they? Will the Government commit to granting humanitarian visas to people needing to flee? We are told that the Bill will introduce an annual cap on the number of refugees whom the UK will accept, but how would that work? If the next person arriving is escaping the terrible cruelty of the Taliban or the appalling regime in Iran, will they just be refused? The number of family reunion visas issued in the year to September last year was more than a third down on 2019, so safe routes are in fact being constricted. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will commit to supporting my Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which recently passed this House, when it progresses through the other place?

Instead of locking up asylum seekers or forcing them to stay in hotels, will the Government commit to ending their absurd ban on asylum seekers working after they have been waiting months for their claims to be processed? If so, they could pay their way.

We are expected to proceed with a Bill of which the Government themselves say there is more than a 50% chance that it is incompatible with the ECHR. Quite how they can say they

“remain confident that this Bill is compatible with international law”,

when simultaneously believing that it is only 50% likely to be, is a mystery. How can a law actually designed to circumvent human rights possibly be fit for purpose? Lastly, speaking of human rights, can I ask for a list of countries to which people would not be returned?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that the need for reform is obvious and urgent. The problem in the channel has grown over the last two years. Since 2018, 85,000 illegally entered the UK by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. Many of them came from safe countries, such as Albania, and all travelled through multiple safe countries, in which they could and should have claimed asylum. The vast majority, 74% in 2021, were adult males under 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.

Noble Lords will not have noticed or been able to discern from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, any policy from either the Labour Party or the Liberal party to address the crossing of the channel. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that the delays in the asylum process were causing the mass migration—this is simply not the case. As the UNHCR says, there are 100 million refugees in the world at the moment. This requires an urgent and sustainable solution.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me whether the Nationality and Borders Act was not a complete answer. I can reassure him that it was never said that that Act would be a silver bullet. This Bill builds on that Act, which laid the foundations of our approach but, because the situation has got worse, we now need to go further. The Nationality and Borders Act was about changing how we processed asylum claims in the current system to streamline it and reduce late and spurious claims. It made progress, and it is right that we did that, but this is different. We are now going to move these cases out of the system entirely, so they are heard elsewhere in a safe country. Illegal entry will no longer be a route to making a claim to settle in the UK—it is only by making it clear that if you come here illegally you will not have the ability to stay here that we will stop the boats. That is a measure of compassion, because it will stop people embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel.

Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has suggested that creating safe and legal routes is the answer, I can reply to her that it is no answer. If Parliament set a cap of, say, 30,000 that it was going to take by means of the safe and legal routes that already exist, all that would happen is that the demand would remain from those who do not fall within the cap, and the criminal gangs would still be there to feed that demand.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his right honourable friends in the other place, suggested that the answer was to put more money into the NCA to break the criminal gangs. We have already done that: the NCA funding has been doubled, but that cannot on its own be any answer. The only answer is one to be made in legislation.

For all those reasons, I do not accept the criticisms advanced by noble Lords.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

3rd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her remarks and thank all those who contributed in previous debates on the Bill. The Government’s policy already fully recognises that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which those seeking protection are often forced to flee their own country. Our family reunion policy allows those recognised as refugees or granted humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom to sponsor their immediate family members to join them here, if the family union was formed before their refugee sponsor fled their country of origin. This has seen more than 43,700 individuals reunited with their refugee family members since 2015. This is a significant number, which highlights the policy’s success as a safe and legal route for families to reunite in this country.

I remind noble Lords that this Government fully support the principle of family unity and share the concern for those families who have been separated by conflict or oppression. It is for precisely this reason that the Government already have a comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families here in the UK. I remind noble Lords that this framework is already set out in the Immigration Rules and in our refugee family reunion policy, which negates the need for the Bill and is the reason why the Government do not support it.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying. I am obviously disappointed but not surprised that the Government do not support the Bill, but I am afraid I must dissent from his assertion that the Government fully support the principle of family unity, because that really is not translated into policy and practice. Yes, he cites the number of family reunion visas since 2015, but it is difficult and in some cases costly and long-winded to obtain one, and it is unjustifiable to put all these barriers in the way. The rules are unreasonably restrictive and would be much improved with the Bill, so I live in hope that, one day, this or another Government will see the light and understand that it is not just compassion but hard-headed realism and cost-effectiveness that drive the reasoning of the Bill and other suggestions for improved, easier family reunion.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. My conjecture would be that it is fewer, but I will confirm the position and write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for calling these amendments simple but important. I am grateful for his support.

On Amendment 77, I note the Minister’s assurance that he believes that the current drafting would achieve the aim of pursuing the possibility of prosecution, but obviously that incorporates not only a static but a dynamic possibility. I think the fear of the JCHR is that the wording, certainly in Clause 44(5), does not really imply any ongoing investigative mission, as it were. Saying “If we can prosecute, we will” has to mean that a certain re-evaluation takes place. But that is not all that Clause 44(5) says. It says that the chief officer of police must

“secure that the investigation of the individual’s conduct … is kept under review”.

It does not actually require any investigation, or any periodic investigation, so I am not really persuaded, despite the Minister’s reassurances, that that sense of a dynamic possibility of keeping the potential for prosecution under if not a permanent but certainly a periodic review is incorporated into the drafting of the Bill. We may come back to this at a later stage, but I am not entirely persuaded by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

We invite the proposers of the amendments not to press them; further information will follow.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Well—my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed asked the obvious question of what happens next, and we got a rather obscure answer. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will be able to tease out a little more about what the next steps might be.

I thought the Minister started on a rather encouraging note. I thought he was going to say, “Yes, Amendment 81 is jolly good, and we accept it”. I would imagine that it has been the subject of discussions and exchanges and so on, but the promise that came from the beginning of the Minister’s remarks was not really realised, or not realised at all.

In breathless anticipation of what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is going to say—I hope that I am not taking his name in vain, as it were—I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80. I hope, however, that this is not the end of the discussion on Amendment 81.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I speak first to Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. First, I thank him very much for the frank way in which he posed his questions, and I am glad to say that I can answer the first tranche of his questions simply with yes. I will set out in more detail why that is.

The amendment relates to the power for the Secretary of State to designate sites where those arrested under Clause 25 can be detained. There was a lively debate on this topic in the other place, which led to the Government carefully considering this issue and amending the Bill to provide for the sites to be designated only if they are in the UK. As the noble Lord observed, this provision can be found at paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6, and I can confirm that is indeed the case. That states that the power

“may be exercised only in relation to land or a building in the United Kingdom which is owned or controlled by a police force”—

so that is any police force.

The Government consider that the amendments to Schedule 6 in the other place have sufficiently clarified the need for and the intention behind this power and I understand that this satisfies the noble Lord’s concerns regarding where the sites may be located. Just to confirm, the power therefore extends to the MoD Police, the British Transport Police, ,the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, et cetera, and there are no special arrangements in relation to Northern Ireland.

Clause 25(6) confirms that a 24-hour detention period can be extended by a reviewing officer to a maximum of 48 hours. The first review is as soon as reasonably practicable after arrest and then this must be reviewed at least every 12 hours, obviously up to the maximum.

The noble Lord mentioned arrest abroad. UK constables do not have the power of arrest abroad and the powers therefore do not therefore extend to Armed Forces police abroad. Any relevant people would be arrested by local officers and extradition would be arranged in the conventional way.

I will return to the topic of oversight later but I can confirm that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has a statutory role in inspecting all police forces under Section 54 of the Police Act 1996, about which the noble Lord knows. That body regularly inspects all aspects of policing, including places of detention. Given that any sites designated under this power will be under the control of the police, they would automatically be subject to their inspection, and the Government therefore believe that there is no need to include a further statutory inspection regime as this will be duplicative.

I can confirm that it was never the Government’s intention to designate sites located outside the UK. This amendment clarifies the policy position. In Northern Ireland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is subject to annual statutory inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services under Section 41. Similarly, in Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland provides independent scrutiny of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. We do not consider it reasonable to interpret this to include locations under the temporary control of a police force, such as a crime scene.

Amendments 61 and 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, are to Schedule 6. They seek to implement two of the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on the Bill. The first amendment seeks to remove the ability for the police to delay a suspect’s access to certain rights while being detained under the arrest power in the Bill for solely asset recovery reasons; I will address this first, if I may.

If the police have intelligence to suggest that a detained suspect has property that is connected to suspected criminal activity—for example, cash—and might use their permitted communication with a named person or their solicitor to ask them to take steps to move cash or property on the suspect’s behalf, to hide evidence or otherwise ensure that the asset cannot be seized by the police, it is clearly right that the police should be able to delay that communication taking place while they seize those assets, gather associated evidence and ensure that crime does not pay. I believe that the safeguards written into the Bill as drafted are sufficient when delaying these rights. The direction to delay must be given by a senior police officer, who must have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing access to these rights at that point in the investigation will hinder recovery of the property.

Additionally, it is written into the legislation that the suspect must be allowed to exercise both these rights within the first 48 hours of detention, so there will not be a situation where a suspect is detained for longer than this without exercising these rights. More details on this process will be contained in the code of practice made under this part of the Bill, including the fact that any delay in these rights must be recorded in the custody record and the suspect must be informed of the decision. Similar provisions can be found in PACE Code H, which operates for detentions under the Terrorism Act 2000.

I turn to the noble Baroness’s second amendment—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting but, before the Minister moves on to Amendment 63, can he explain something? It may just be my inability to see it but, in their response, the Government refer to

“proceeds from crime from state threats activity”.

I have not been able to find that phrase in the text of the Bill; it just refers to how there can be a delay in informing a family member or notifying a solicitor if

“the detained person has benefited from their criminal conduct”

and the recovery of the asset “will be hindered by” those rights being exercised. Where does it refer to proceeds of crime arising from state threats activity, so that one can see it being brought within the national security purview? I cannot see that in the text but I am sure that the Minister can point out how the response is justified on that point.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Forgive me; the answer is that, in the text of the Bill, this is not limited to state threats proceeds of crime. The operation of the Bill is as I just described in my speech and, as I have already said, its safeguards are built into the statute itself.

The second amendment to Schedule 6 tabled by the noble Baroness seeks to remove certain circumstances whereby a review of a suspect’s detention may be postponed. There are various reasons why a review may need to be postponed. For example, the suspect may be receiving medical treatment and be unable to make representations on their continued detention to the review officer. It may be that there is a delay in the review officer arriving at a custody suite, or they may be reviewing another suspect’s detention if multiple arrests have been made in a short period.

It is impossible to predict all the possible circumstances and make specific provision for them in the legislation. The legislation does not provide for the review to be permanently postponed. It is required to be carried out as soon as possible, but this proposal provides for some operational flexibility. The code of practice—which, as I have said, the Government will publish in due course—will provide further information on reviews of detention, and we will state the requirement for any postponement of detention reviews to be recorded on the custody record. In the meantime, similar provision again can be found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice code H, which operates for detentions under the Terrorism Act 2000.

With that, I conclude.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is the intention to benefit that foreign power that is in this Bill, and it seems to me that that is a sufficiently clear and adequate definition to afford protection under the proposed section.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was just looking up to see whether the words “intended to benefit a foreign power” were actually in the Bill, but I did not have time. In skimming through, I did not see them.

The Minister’s response has not really reassured me. The lack of definition of “interests of the UK”, with a question mark over what that means and how you could conflate the interests of the country and the interests of the current Government, coupled with the potentially wide definition of “restricted”, suggests, to myself and my noble friends on these Benches at least, a lack of precision and an opportunity that is too wide, especially considering that the penalty that could be faced is life imprisonment. Surely, there is an onus on us to secure a tight definition of offences in this Bill.

The other missing element, which we will come to in further discussions, is the lack of a public interest defence or a whistleblowing defence. What we are facing here is considerable uncertainty about what the real scope of the offence could be. As my noble friend Lord Marks said, the term “restricted in any way” is so undefined, it could cover innocuous but controversial documents, which could be restricted to prevent embarrassment. That is the discussion we keep having on journalism and whistleblowing: we should not open the door to the criminalisation of obtaining or publishing material that could be embarrassing to the ruling party.

I scribbled some notes, but I am afraid I cannot remember which noble Lord made this point. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. How are we meant to know what non-classified information is protected? It could apply to anything, however innocent, that was not published. If the Government have a document that they regard as restricted, even though it is not classified, the fact that it has not been published would mean it was restricted, although it may not be damaging except possibly to the reputations of the Government or Ministers.

If I were to get hold of a document saying that a Bill—for the sake of plucking something out of the air, let us say the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill—is designed to assuage some elements of political opinion in the party in power but is highly damaging to the diplomatic and economic interests of the United Kingdom, would that fall within the terms of the offence under Clause 1? In those circumstances, what is the nature of the restriction? What is the harm committed and what is the test of UK interests?

We keep coming back to the considerable grey areas in this whole package around Clause 1 and other clauses. I think we will want to explore this matter further. Otherwise, we are driving a coach and horses through the exercise of freedom of expression and other rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which for the time being the UK is still a party to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The Minister has the advantage of having read the Government’s response to the JCHR report. As a mere member of the JCHR, I know that, unfortunately, two months after Report, it did not come in time for this Committee, let alone Second Reading. I look forward to reading it.

I did not follow every detail of what he read, but could the Minister tell me what guards against someone being prosecuted under Clause 5,

“Unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place”?


The clause raises worries about protestors, journalists, photographers and so on, and does not have a test of breaching national security because the criteria in Clause 4—where there is a test of prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK—are not met. It could look as though you have the lower offence, with the possibility of six months imprisonment, where there is no purpose to assist a foreign power and no prejudice to the interests of the UK, but the catch-all of Clause 5, where anyone who wanders on to Ministry of Defence land can attract a six-month prison sentence, whether or not they have done any espionage or harm to the security of the UK. What is the defence to Clause 5 being some sort of compensation for not being able to charge under Clause 4?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I sought to explain to the Committee, the Clause 5 offence can be committed only where a person engages in the specified conduct in relation to a prohibited place that is unauthorised, and they must know, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised. It is specifically the point, as I hope I alluded to in my remarks earlier, that the Clause 5 offence is the summary-only offence, which is intended to preclude unauthorised entry to prohibited places to avoid the risk of national security consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes. My suspicion is that both answers are in the affirmative, but I am afraid I do not know for sure. I will find out from my officials and write to the noble Lord. I thank him for raising that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am quite disappointed by the Minister’s responses on this. There are considerable dangers in this part of the Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that the offence under Clause 4 is committed only if

“the person knows, or ought reasonably to know,”

that their conduct

“is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

We have been around those houses before. Ought ramblers reasonably to know that they are

“in the vicinity of a prohibited place”?

Again, what does that mean? It is like “adjacent”. I do not think the Minister replied on the meaning of “adjacent”; forgive me if I missed that. It is all very difficult for some normal, uncriminal person to know that they are committing an offence under Clause 4. Clause 5 also says they “ought reasonably to know”. It is all rather reminiscent of being “in the vicinity” or “adjacent”. The Government also have powers to designate more places as prohibited.

The Minister drew our attention to the defence

“to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for that failure”

under Clause 11 in relation to a cordoned area. As far as I can see—I might have missed it—there is no such reasonable excuse defence in relation to the offences under Clauses 4 and 5 on entering or unauthorised entry to a prohibited place. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will be able to write to correct me.

This all seems quite reminiscent of the Covid restrictions. In the last couple of days, the human rights barrister Adam Wagner did a review of Matt Hancock’s diaries, or so-called diaries. Presumably, as he is an ex-Cabinet Minister, this publication would have been vetted by the Cabinet Office. This is the Minister who would have signed off all the SIs on Covid restrictions—200, or however many there were. The publication by Mr Hancock says that these were all SIs under the Coronavirus Act, which is not true; they were under the public health Act 1984, if memory serves. It went through the Cabinet Office with no one picking up that the reference was to the wrong law. This is reminiscent of the chaos among the police in applying the restrictions, their failure to distinguish between guidance and law, and the general outrage among the public at being told they could not do things that actually were not illegal. This did not help the reputation of and trust in the police.

I foresee similar echoes from the provisions of this Bill, of an outraged Middle England—or middle UK—where people find themselves adjacent to or in the vicinity of a prohibited place on Ministry of Defence land having had no reason to know about it. The Minister said he would try to consider putting up notices, but I do not think there has been any guarantee. So someone might not know that they were in the vicinity of a prohibited place that is defence land, committing an offence with potentially draconian penalties. This is inadequate as law. The Minister did say that there would be guidance, but there was guidance for the Covid regulations and that did not always solve the problems.

So, while I hear what the Minister says, I will want to return to some of the issues in this part of the Bill. The proposed law is sloppy. It could find innocent people either criminalised or dissuaded from taking their normal walk because they are not sure whether they are allowed in an area, and there could be a general chilling effect on people’s leisure activities. That said, and with the intention of having another look at all of this on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

UK Asylum and Refugee Policy

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Friday 9th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Those considerations are being studied in the department and will feed into future policy on this issue.

Where an individual’s claim is unsuccessful, they would need to be removed to their country of citizenship or another destination where they would be accepted.

It was apparent that there was a tension between the suggestion of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether we should extend our Ukrainian policies to all nationalities. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly noted, it is of course not immoral to have a limit or restrictions on immigration. While we sympathise with the many individuals who are in difficult situations around the world, the United Kingdom simply cannot help everyone who may like to come to this country.

We have introduced the asylum transformation programme, which aims to bring the system back into balance and to modernise it. It focuses on increasing productivity by streamlining, simplifying and digitising processes to speed up asylum decision-making and increase efficiency and output. Since the programme was established in the summer of 2021, a number of positive steps have been taken. More decision-makers have been recruited, alongside steps to keep experienced staff in post.

We have also tested a range of initiatives aimed at reducing the time it takes to interview and decide asylum claims. Changes in recent trials have doubled the number of decisions made per week; we are looking to roll these initiatives out nationwide as a result. This is undoubtedly a significant task, but I assure the House that efforts to address the backlog and alleviate the current pressures will continue in earnest. I hope this assures my noble friend Lord McInnes that the changes we are making will fix the issues with the asylum decision-making process.

Many of those arriving in the UK claim to be children and do not have clear evidence, such as a passport, to back this up. Decision-making is very challenging, and the current process is very subjective and can be disputed in long and expensive legal proceedings. The United Kingdom typically receives more than 3,000 asylum claims from alleged unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Many of those arriving in the UK who claim to be children do not have evidence. Between 2016 and September 2022 there were 7,357 asylum cases in which age was disputed. In the subsequent resolution, some half—3,696 individuals—were in fact found to be adults. If there is doubt whether a claimant is an adult or a child, they are referred to a local authority social services department for a careful, case law-compliant age assessment. They will be treated as a child until a decision on their age is made. I do not need to remind noble Lords that one of the consequences of an adult being treated as a child is that this has the potential to expose those in local authority care to risk.

Beyond our domestic reforms, we are working closely with our international partners to deter small boat arrivals and put an end to the practices of people smuggling and clandestine travel into the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who pointed out the nonsensical position that Albanians can prioritise themselves by crossing the channel in a small boat and, on that basis, effectively jump the queue. It is incumbent on us to prevent that sort of self-selection and queue jumping. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others overlook the basic fact that not all those who claim to be refugees are actually refugees. It is not immoral to point this out. As my noble friend Lord Robathan stated, we must be sensible and not naive about this.

While legal challenges are ongoing, we remain committed to delivering the migration and economic development partnership between the United Kingdom and Rwanda to address the shared international challenge of illegal migration and break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs. This policy does not subcontract or outsource our responsibilities to Rwanda. Instead, the United Kingdom and Rwanda working together will help make the immigration system fairer and ensure that people are safe to enjoy the new opportunities to develop. It is by reforming the asylum system and taking bold international action to address the global migration crisis that we can keep providing protection for those who need it through safe and legal routes.

I would like to respond to the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on our assessment that found Rwanda to be

“a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers.”—[Official Report, 14/6/22; col. 1518.]

This is set out in the relevant country policy and information notes available on GOV.UK. These assessments are kept under review and updated periodically to reflect any significant new issues or evidence. We regularly monitor and review the situation in Rwanda and are working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Last month the United Kingdom and France signed a new agreement further to bolster our combined efforts to prevent dangerous channel crossings, including through strengthened operational co-operation and investment in cutting-edge surveillance technology. The UK remains committed to addressing illegal migration with France via our enduring relationship. We continue to engage with our French friends at all levels, political and operational, supporting the meeting of our shared strategic aims with the provision of technology and sharing of intelligence. France and other EU countries are safe countries and, like the UK, have asylum systems that provide protection to those who need it.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I did not do so earlier. He talks about safe countries, and earlier he said there is an obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country, but he will of course be aware that the UNHCR said that it is absolutely not the law. Indeed, if it were, the refugee convention would never have been signed because countries that neighbour conflict areas, which already take the bulk of refugees, would never have signed it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. I commend to her the excellent Policy Exchange paper From the Channel to Rwanda: Three Essays on the Morality of Asylum. On page 14 of that excellent paper, Professor Finnis reminds us that

“the Rwanda scheme does not sub-contract anything. The UK as a founding party to the Refugee Convention, did not undertake to receive or process or admit refugees. Its contractual undertaking and obligation is (a) to give certain rights and privileges to those refugees whom it has chosen to admit and given leave to stay, and (b) not to deport anyone to an unsafe country.”

Net Migration

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It may assist my noble friend if I remind the Chamber that work visas are 82% higher than they were in 2019 and that this is in part driven by an increase in health and care visas, which make up 50% of all skilled worker visas issued. Family-related visas are 31% lower than in 2019. It is clear that there is a need for more people in the health and care sector, and visas are awarded in relation to that. That is the reason for these exceptional figures. Again, I point to the fact that the figures this year reflect the problems of coming out of the pandemic and the international conflict that we have had to deal with.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, have I got this right? The Government insist on including students in the immigration statistics. Students form one-third of people coming into the country, thereby artificially inflating the migration numbers. The Government’s reaction is to seek to ban students, harming the higher education sector and the economy. Can they really not think of a better way to manage this, starting by excluding students from the immigration statistics?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have no plans to ban students.

Manston Update

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Ludford

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the reason these problems arose was the speed with which people were crossing the Channel illegally: that gave rise to the condition. The noble Baroness may shake her head, but the reality is that, if these people were not crossing the Channel illegally, the situation would not have occurred.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I share the surprise of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the Government are trying somehow to claim credit for rapidly emptying Manston. The fact is that it has been a story of incompetence and chaos, followed by panic. However, I particularly want to ask about staff in the hotels that the asylum seekers are living in. I have seen assurances from the Government in the press that it is not a problem for the wider community because most British residents are vaccinated. But I have also seen a concern expressed about eastern European staff in some of those hotels who apparently—I am relying on press reports—were not routinely vaccinated in their home countries against diphtheria. Is this something that the Government are paying attention to, because although we talk about “isolation hotels”, there will be some staff contact and, if it is an airborne disease, those staff could be at risk?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely get the sense of the noble Baroness’s question. The accommodation, as I say, is run by three contractors on behalf of the Home Office and I would sincerely hope that they are aware of their obligations to their staff to ensure that this is the case. I do not know the precise figures, and I can write to the noble Baroness about that.