Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. When we debated the substantive order that this order amends on 2 March this year, I complained about the original order’s length and complexity. In her letter dated 20 May to Peers who contributed to that debate, the Minister apologised for the mistakes in the original order. I do not wish to add to her embarrassment, but it reads:

“I am acutely aware of the pressures on Parliament over the past year as a result of the pandemic and EU Exit, and apologise unreservedly for these errors. I can assure you that the department has reviewed its internal processes and has taken proactive steps to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.”


I am acutely aware of the pressures on the Minister over the past year, but we have arrived at a situation where secondary legislation is being neither properly drafted nor properly scrutinised by Parliament.

At the end of her closing statement in the debate on 2 March, the Minister said:

“I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions as far as I can today. I will write to noble Lords if I have missed anything out.”


The Minister neither answered my questions at the time —I have read the Hansard of that debate—nor has she written to me as promised, as far as I can ascertain from searching my inbox, as such letters are now delivered only electronically. Specifically, I asked:

“According to the Explanatory Notes, one part of these regulations is to reconcile the regime at the juxtaposed-control seaports in northern France with that for international rail services via the Channel Tunnel. The other part, Article 2, extends all immigration enactments to control zones in France and makes the necessary modifications to other enactments to ensure that UK immigration controls are able to function properly in those control zones.”


But I asked about Belgium:

“Why not Belgium? Are there no international agreements between us and Holland? What steps are being taken to extend arrangements to Belgium and Holland?”


I further asked

“if the arrangements are entirely reciprocal, there appears to be”—

the possibility of—

“double jeopardy where a person could be committing an offence under both British and French law. For example, someone who assaults a French official in a control zone in the UK could be prosecuted both in the UK and in France, were the French to have equivalent legislation to these regulations. If that were the case, who would have precedence in terms of prosecution? Would it depend on whether it was a French national or a British national”

who was the perpetrator?

My concern is enhanced by the addition of Article 12(7) to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which states:

“Any jurisdiction conferred by virtue of this article on any court is without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this article by any French court.”


There was no response. I then asked:

“The regulations appear to significantly expand the enactments having effect in a control zone in France from a specific and limited number of enactments in the 2002 order to all immigration control enactments; the Minister explained that the remit of Border Force officers has expanded since 2002. Even if that is necessary and proportionate, for the sake of clarity should the regulations list those immigration control enhancements so that people know exactly what they are subject to?”


There was no reply.

I also asked:

“The regulations appear to remove the protections provided by the Data Protection Act in relation to data processed in a control zone in France in connection with immigration control. Why is that necessary and proportionate?”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; cols. 1103-09.]


There was no answer.

This is what Parliament has been reduced to. The Government are making mistakes in the drafting of legislation, regulations are so long and complex that it is difficult for parliamentarians to properly scrutinise them, and even when we get the opportunity to hold the Government to account, our questions are ignored, as they were today on the Statement regarding the Daniel Morgan case. I will regret these regulations when they are tabled for approval on the Floor of the House, and I will tell the House why.