EU Borders: Hand and Face Scanning

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, given that airports have failed to meet the deadline that the Government suggested for introducing the rule about being able to carry liquids on board, and that there are long delays at Dover every possible bank holiday weekend, how confident is my noble friend that this deadline will be reached? What will happen if the delays are insufferable? Will additional staff be in place to assist passengers in this regard?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, considerable investment is going into the queues at Dover. Noble Lords may be aware that the Department for Transport has provisionally awarded £45 million of levelling-up fund money to Kent County Council for the Dover border improvement project, which aims to substantially reduce outbound queues at the port. Ferry operators have previously been very pragmatic about allowing vehicles on to ferries if crossings are missed due to disruption, but we recognise the impact of disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum has a package of well-tested traffic management plans to manage disruption to keep passengers and freight traffic flowing.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

She is not a colleague so, no, she has not shared it. I am not going to second-guess what she was trying to say this morning; that would be foolish. As regards having two Ministers for Immigration, this is a big subject so, clearly, it deserves two. I suppose I could give a flippant answer: at least they will be able to process these claims twice as fast.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely support the Government’s attempts to outlaw and stop the work of these criminal gangs, but we must proceed on a safe legal basis. My noble friend has accepted that the Government are proposing to set aside part of the ECHR. Can he confirm that we are still bound by the provisions of the international convention on refugees? Does he share my concern that, if reports are correct, the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation issued a statement yesterday saying the following:

“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership”?


Can my noble friend give me a reassurance today that that will not be the case and we will proceed by legal means?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said in answer to an earlier question, Clause 1(6) details international law. It includes the human rights convention; the refugee convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966; and the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. I could go on. I suggest that we read Clause 1(6); it is very clear.

Police Uplift Programme

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asks me to comment on operational policing matters. I have talked a bit about neighbourhood policing activities; I have also, on a number of occasions, said that 91% of policemen are involved in front-line activities. These are really issues that should be debated between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, depending on the area.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, rural crime takes on a life of its own. North Yorkshire was the first police force, I understand, to create a rural task force. Will the Home Office give a specific target for rural crime to ensure that the funding for such task forces is secured going forward?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that, as I said in answer to the previous question, these are operational matters for chief constables and police and crime commissioners—and, of course, in the case of police and crime commissioners, the people who elect them.

Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am before the Committee today to propose the extension of licensing hours in recognition of His Majesty the King’s Coronation. I ask your Lordships to support the order to extend licensing hours on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of

“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

The Government consider the Coronation to be such an occasion. This will be a period in which we celebrate our new monarch. I am sure many people will want to gather with their family and friends to raise a glass to His Majesty the King and wish him a long and successful reign.

The extension will apply to premises licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales, which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open until 1 am without having to notify the licensing authority via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. The order covers only sales for consumption on the premises after 11 pm. It does not cover premises which sell alcohol only for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets.

Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. This includes, for example, venues holding music events or dances as well as theatres and cinemas. Premises which provide late-night refreshment —the supply of hot food or hot drinks to the public—between 11 pm and 5 am but do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises will not be covered by the order; such premises will be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am only if their existing licence already permits this.

The Home Office conducted a public consultation, which ran from 19 December 2022 to 23 January 2023. The majority of respondents agreed with the extension on the three proposed dates and that it should apply to England and Wales. The consultation also received responses from numerous trade organisations, which were supportive of the extension of licensing hours. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Local Government Association were both in agreement with the proposed extension to licensing hours for His Majesty the King’s Coronation.

I would therefore greatly welcome the Committee’s support for this measure to help celebrate a special and historic moment in our national history. I commend the draft order to the Committee. Mine’s a pint, God save the King and I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this order. This is a very appropriate opportunity to raise a glass in the way that my noble friend suggested. We looked very closely at the issuing of licences under the original ad hoc committee on the Licensing Act 2003 and the follow-up inquiry and continue to take a close interest in that.

I am not suggesting that it should be extended, but what is the thinking behind applying the extension to three days only and not to the bank holiday Monday?

If I have understood correctly, the fee has been kept at £21. That is very welcome, as it is mindful of the constraints under which the licensed premises operate. One reason why this is an excellent idea is to recognise what a hard time our hospitality sector has had coming out of Covid.

I think all of us look forward to supporting the industry in this way to the best of our ability—within moderation, obviously.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think that they should have notice, but the point is that the paragraph 17 conditions exclude activities that would impose an additional burden on a site provider, as I have just said, and activities that disrupted their day-to-day business or create new health and safety risks would not satisfy the requirement. I honestly think that answers the point.

I think that I have answered most of the questions; I will obviously check Hansard and, if I have not, I will come back. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is prepared to withdraw this amendment.

I move on to Clause 66, as probed by my noble friend, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, with the support of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It creates a bespoke process for the court to impose an agreement where an operator needs a person, to whom I shall refer as “the landowner”, to confer or be bound by code rights and that person fails to respond to repeated requests for such rights.

The provisions require an operator to have sent an initial request notice and two warning notices, followed by a final notice, to the landowner. There must be a period of 14 days between the giving of each notice, meaning that the landowner will have been given a minimum of 56 days in which to respond to the operator. For the landowner to fall out of scope of Part 4ZA, all that is required of them is to respond to any of the above notices in writing before the operator applies to the court. If granted, a Part 4ZA order will impose an agreement on the landowner and operator. The terms of that agreement are to be specified in regulations made following stakeholder consultation.

My noble friend asked about situations where landowners are non-responsive. If they are unwilling to engage, for example, in alternative dispute resolution processes, it will remain open to the operator to apply to a court under Part 4 of the code to seek an order to impose an agreement granting code rights. These provisions impose a six-year maximum time limit on the period for which rights conferred under a Part 4ZA order may last. I emphasise this detail because it forms an important part of the Bill’s safeguards on landowners’ property rights. This clause provides a much-needed process that will play a large part in ensuring that homes and businesses benefit from the national gigabit broadband upgrade and are not left behind. I therefore commend Clause 66.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I think both the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and I asked whom, following court rulings in this regard, but also in terms of regulations, do the Government or the department intend to consult? Will they ensure that the occupiers are on that list? It is not clear from the drafting of the Bill that they will be included.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

If my noble friend will permit, I will come to the points she raises on consultation shortly.

Clause 72 will allow the Secretary of State to amend the Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016. Sharing infrastructure in the concentration of gigabit-capable networks can greatly reduce the cost and increase the pace of deploying networks, and can reduce the need to dig up streets, preventing unnecessary disruption to the local population and reducing carbon emissions. The 2016 regulations enable sharing of information about access to physical infrastructure across the utility, transport and communications sectors. They also include the right to access that infrastructure on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions. The Government published our response to the call for evidence on a review of these regulations last year. We set out that there may be some areas where they could be made easier to use and to understand.

In addition, we said we would legislate to allow future changes to the regulations via secondary legislation rather than relying on primary legislation. That legislation would be subject to further consultation with Ofcom and other appropriate parties. To expand on that a little, Clause 72 makes clear that

“the Secretary of State must consult … OFCOM; … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

before making such regulations. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances where the landowner would not be one of the other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate—obviously, if I have that wrong I will write to noble Lords. In addition, any regulations made using this power will still be scrutinised as part of the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 72 therefore grants to the Secretary of State a narrow power to make provision, through regulations, conferring rights on network providers in relation to infrastructure for the purpose of developing communications networks. These provisions include the power to amend, revoke or replace the 2016 regulations.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Vaizey raised some useful points about operator behaviour, which I think we may discuss in more detail in later amendments in group 6 on the Ofcom code of practice. I will leave it till then to address those, if that is acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I read my brief very carefully, and I said “any transitional provisions in respect of the Bill”—I did not say that there will be transitional provisions—after listening to the various concerns I just outlined.

I now turn to Amendment 34 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. This is an amendment to the 1954 Act which seeks to prevent interim rent being backdated where an agreement is renewed under that statute. As we have discussed when talking about Clauses 61 and 62, it is the Government’s intention that the various statutory mechanisms for the renewal of agreements to which the code applies is as consistent as possible, and this amendment would increase inconsistency.

First, the amendment would create inconsistency within the 1954 Act itself. The ability to seek backdated payments of interim rent would be prevented only where the site provider had given notice to the operator under Section 25 of the Act. Where an operator had served notice under Section 26 of the Act, the ability to seek backdated rental payments would remain. Secondly, it would create inconsistency between the 1954 Act and the code. Clause 67 will allow payment of a modified rate of consideration to be backdated to the date of the application, whereas I understand that the noble Lords’ intention is to prevent rent from being payable at the backdated interim rent rate. It is difficult to justify such inconsistency.

Finally, the ability to seek an interim rent which is backdated is not a new concept. The parties would have been aware of this when entering into those agreements to which the 1954 Act applies. There is always a risk that the market will have adversely changed between the date on which the agreement was entered into and the time when the agreement is ready for renewal, and that the interim rent will be less than the amount currently paid. I appreciate that this may be exacerbated by the imposition of the code valuation framework on these agreements, but the Government will look at this impact when drafting any transitional provisions.

Absolutely finally, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about picking and choosing, was covered by my noble friend Lord Parkinson on the first day of Committee in relation to Amendment 17, but if there are any outstanding questions on that, we would be very happy to discuss them separately. In answer to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about general valuations, my noble friend will deal with that in the next group. Under the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for the debate we have had, and I hope that my noble friend will look warmly on the amendments that were so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have to say that it was rather amusing, being a lawyer, to hear that this would be a good opportunity for lawyers. I would not have thought that would be something the noble Lord would pass down. I look forward to continuing the debate.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the following three statutory instruments, copies of which were laid before this House on 1 and 8 March: first, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2022; secondly, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2022; and. thirdly, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022.

The instruments before us were laid under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act, and came into effect under the “made affirmative” procedure. As part of our wider package of sanctions measures and designations, these new regulations ratchet up the pressure to further isolate Russia, degrade its economy, and starve out Putin’s war machine. We have worked tirelessly with allies across the world in response to Putin’s abhorrent war. Since Russia’s invasion began, the UK has delivered its largest package of sanctions ever imposed.

With your Lordships’ permission, I will tackle each of the three statutory instruments in turn. First, on the maritime statutory instrument, on 1 March the UK was the first country to turn any Russian vessels away from its ports. We introduced new restrictions, barring all ships that are Russian owned, operated, controlled, chartered, registered or flagged, and we did not stop there. These measures provide new powers to direct Russian vessels out of British ports and to detain Russian vessels already in port. These powers offer an important tool for targeting oligarchs and wealthy individuals closely associated with the Putin regime. Finally, anyone connected with Russia can no longer register a vessel and will have any existing registrations terminated. This strips away the competitive advantage provided by being a member of the UK Ship Register. We are working closely with those in the port sector to support them in upholding the regulations, and we have issued detailed guidance to support those on the ground.

The second statutory instrument—the No. 5 regulations —relates to the Russia central bank. Also on 1 March, we introduced new restrictions that prohibit any individual or entity from providing financial services, relating to foreign exchange reserve and asset management, involving the Central Bank of Russia, the Russian National Wealth Fund, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. This action, taken in close co-ordination with the US and the EU, prevents the Russian central bank from deploying its reserves in ways that undermine the impact of sanctions imposed by us and our allies. It undercuts the bank’s ability to make foreign exchange transactions to support the Russian rouble. Alongside the existing raft of financial sanctions, this really locks down the most severe restrictions.

The third and final SI, concerning aviation, space and insurance products, was laid on 8 March. We introduced a new suite of aircraft sanctions and established new government powers to detain Russian aircraft in the UK. We were the first country to ban Russian aircraft from our airspace, on the 25 February. We have now extended this ban, making it a criminal offence for any Russian aircraft to fly or land here. The ban includes any aircraft owned, operated or chartered by anyone connected with Russia, and any individuals operating in UK airspace. The new powers will also allow the Government to remove aircraft belonging to designated Russian individuals from the UK aircraft register. The statutory instrument builds on critical industry trade prohibitions which came into force on 1 March. It will go further by extending the above prohibitions to cover all aviation and space goods, technology and related services, including the provision of insurance and reinsurance services. With similar action taken by our partners, these measures are designed to severely constrain Russia’s commercial air operations and logistics, with consequential impact on its economy.

Noble Lords will wish to be aware that the Government are intending to make some corrections to this SI shortly.

Russia’s assault is reprehensible, unprovoked, premeditated and a barbaric attack on Ukraine and on the very foundation of our societies and the rules by which we coexist. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said previously, the UK will continue, as promised, to impose further sanctions against Putin and his regime if he does not change course. We will ratchet up our sanctions until Putin ends this invasion of choice, which represents a clear breach of international law and the UN charter. The UK and our international partners stand united in the face of Russian aggression. Putin has led the Russian people into a quagmire and turned Russia into an international pariah.

It does not stop at Governments. Indeed, we have seen all organisations—from banks to oil companies and from football leagues to singing competitions—make it clear that Putin and his allies must be isolated from the international community for his actions. The UK’s latest designations, announced on 14 March, mean that the UK’s total number of designated persons, entities and subsidiaries now stands above 1,000. Together with our allies, we are making Putin and his allies pay the price. Our unity demonstrates the strength of opposition against Russian aggression.

We are unwavering in our support for the people of Ukraine. We hold them in our hearts and minds at this terrible moment in their nation’s history. As a free and democratic country, Ukraine has the right to determine its own future, but it is clear that the Russian Government were never serious about engaging in diplomacy. They were only ever focused on their territorial ambitions. The UK and the international community stand against this naked aggression and for freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of nations around the world. Our new and upcoming sanctions regulations and measures will continue to show Putin that his abhorrent war is a massive strategic mistake. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for setting out the instruments before us, which I am delighted to say I support most warmly.

There seems to be a general trend in each of the statutory instruments that I have participated in, and that is that corrections are being made. I understand the pressure and the timeframe that my noble friend and the department are under. I wonder whether he can set out to us what the corrections are that he had in mind; I am sure they are only minor.

I do not want to detract at all from the scale of the sanctions that my noble friend has set out today, but given that most of the items that are the subject of the regulations before us, such as Russian ships, may have already been moved out of our area and that those who had finances in UK banks may have already moved them, how confident is my noble friend that we are sufficiently targeting sanctions to degrade the Russian economy in the way that my noble friend has set out, which I entirely support?

Each set of regulations sets out that there could be unintended consequences. In particular, paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations sets out:

“There could also be unintended consequences, such as a negative impact on bilateral trade.”


I do not intend to criticise the Government at all for the sanctions we have imposed. We realise that there will be a quid pro quo, but I wonder to what extent my noble friend has had discussions with European Union countries and a wider international grouping, particularly as regards the assessment they have made of the inflationary impact and the potential shortage of food.

We have seen the cost of fertiliser, household fuel and diesel rise. I admit that I run a diesel car, and I have been staggered. I have seen the cost rise from £1.72 to £1.92 per litre, and I am told it will go higher. Properties off the grid in this country are dependent—as I am in the north of England—on oil-fired heating. I did not realise that we are dependent on additives and diesel from Russia. I wonder what other sources we might be looking at in that regard.

I am mindful of the fact that, since we left the European Union, we have been particularly dependent on Ukrainian workers, as we were told by my noble friend Lord Benyon in answer to a Question in the House recently. Ukrainian workers make up 75% to 80% of those who pick our local crops of fruit and vegetables. As we near the time of year when that happens, we will have to look at how we can work on the supply chains in this regard. Also, I know for a fact that DFDS carries a lot of supplies between continental Europe and the UK. It is a slightly separate issue, I know, but to what extent might the supply chain be impacted by the fact that we now have this little difficulty with P&O Ferries? I hope that it can be resolved.

Although I welcome the sanctions, I am concerned about whether we will be able to handle and deal with the impact of higher food prices, which we are seeing in the shops. Those of us who live in rural areas are seeing that impact on the cost of deliveries in the cost of diesel, the cost of heating fuel and the other measures that I referred to. However, I wish my noble friend the Minister and the department every speed in hopefully bringing the Russian invasion to a swift conclusion.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering for explaining her amendment. Government Amendment 73 is a technical amendment to Clause 77. It does not change the policy; it makes a minor revision to the drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 77 to ensure that it matches the rest of the clause in only making provision in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This change will prevent any uncertainty arising about the jurisdictions in which this clause should be applied, and it gives the Tribunal Procedure Committee complete clarity about how to approach drafting the rules to enact these measures.

I turn now to Amendments 72 and 73. The Government are committed to making the immigration and asylum system more efficient, while also maintaining fairness, ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. To achieve this, we need all representatives involved in these proceedings—whether they are acting for the appellant or for the Home Office—to play their part in ensuring that appeals run smoothly. Representatives do not just have a duty to act in the best interests of their client; they also owe duties to the courts and to the public interest, which include acting with integrity, upholding the rule of law and supporting the proper administration of justice. We are aware that there are concerns about the behaviour of some representatives in immigration proceedings, which can waste judicial and tribunal resource and lead to delays in the tribunal process. Existing case law identifies the types of circumstances and behaviours which have led to costs orders being made or considered, and the principles applied by the courts. These have included showing a complete disregard for procedural rules through, for example, abusing court processes in relation to evidence or the timing of applications. As with the current costs orders regime, the policy will apply equally to the representatives of both parties—in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. This will include the Home Secretary when represented by presenting officers. To further ensure fairness, the paying party will be able to make representations before any order is made, and the tribunal retains absolute discretion as to whether a charge should be made in each case.

As I explained in Committee, tribunals can currently make wasted and unreasonable costs orders which relate to the legal costs of the parties. However, these mechanisms are generally only considered at the request of the other party and are infrequently employed. Clause 76 creates a new power for tribunals to order a party to pay an amount which represents a portion of the tribunal’s costs which have been wasted as a direct result of that party acting unreasonably, improperly or negligently. This power applies across all tribunal jurisdictions and is subject to the Tribunal Procedure Committee making rules for its application in a particular tribunal. It will allow the tribunal to make an order in relation to wasted tribunal resources in the same types of circumstances which would currently warrant a wasted or unreasonable costs order. An order can be made against “relevant participants”: this means legal and other representatives exercising rights of audience, and the Secretary of State where they are a party and do not have legal representatives. I hope that this goes some way to reassuring my noble friend.

To encourage increased consideration of whether to make costs orders, Clause 77 provides a duty on the Tribunal Procedure Committee to introduce tribunal procedure rules in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This will lead to judges more regularly considering whether to make a wasted costs order, an unreasonable costs order or a tribunal costs order under the new Clause 76 provision. This will ensure that circumstances and behaviours which have warranted the making of costs orders previously will more often give rise to judicial attention. While the requirement in Clause 77 is for the TPC to make rules in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, it is at the committee’s discretion to create similar rules in other jurisdictions if it considers it appropriate. Specifically, Clause 77 requires procedural rules which identify circumstances or behaviours which, absent of reasonable explanation, the tribunal will treat as warranting consideration of the making of a costs order. The rules thereby introduce a presumption that requires the representative, or other relevant party responsible for such circumstances or behaviour, to explain themselves and why such a costs order should not be made. This will ensure the regular consideration of costs orders by the tribunal. More importantly, however, the tribunal will retain absolute discretion as to whether to make an order in all cases.

Noble Lords have asked whether this will mean fewer representatives willing to take on immigration work. The Government think it right that representatives should explain themselves if they are responsible for circumstances to be set out in the rules as warranting consideration of a costs order. However, where there is a reasonable explanation, no order would be expected. The tribunal continues to have full discretion as to whether to make the order. Therefore, these changes should not impact legal representatives who fulfil their duties to the court, remain committed to their work and ensure justice for their clients.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why these changes are being made in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber and not in other jurisdictions. Obviously, the Nationality and Borders Bill as whole is focused on reforming the asylum system. Clauses 76 and 77 are part of a programme of reforms designed to streamline immigration and asylum appeals. There has been judicial concern, and a recognition that a problem exists with the behaviour of some legal representatives and other relevant parties in immigration proceedings. It is at the discretion of the Tribunal Procedure Committee to create similar rules in other jurisdictions if it considers it appropriate.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down: I asked a specific question as to why the money raised will be paid into a consolidated fund. I listened carefully and I do not think I heard him respond on that point.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I will have to come back to the noble Baroness on that point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I detect the mood of the House is not to support these provisions but the hour is late, and we have a lot more business to come, so am reluctant to test the opinion of the House. At this stage—

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry for interrupting, but I have just been informed that the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is that it is standard practice.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful. If that is the case, I am surprised that the Law Society of Scotland is not aware of that, because it certainly did not respond in that regard.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns. I would like another opportunity at some future date to pursue this further, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling Amendments 83 and 84, concerning the fees that may be charged in relation to registration of British citizenship. Please be in no doubt that we recognise the strength of feeling on this subject, which I know is of particular importance to my noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I say at the outset that the Government recognise that the acquisition of British citizenship is a significant life event and offers particular value to those able to obtain it, particularly children. All noble Lords agree with this point and have observed it.

Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up. It also offers specific practical, legal and intangible benefits, including the right to vote on reaching adulthood, of course, and the particular sense of identity and belonging that results from knowing that the country that you have grown up in is your own.

Please let me also reassure the House that the Government are actively considering fees in this space. Following the Court of Appeal judgment in the case brought by the project for the registration of children as British citizens last year, the Secretary of State committed to reviewing the fee in line with her duties under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. While I recognise that the House has been very patient, waiting for the outcome of that review as though waiting for Godot, it is the Government’s view that it was important to allow the Supreme Court to give its view on the questions raised by a separate ground in this case, which considered fundamental questions around whether the powers that underpin the setting of fees had been lawfully applied, before concluding that work. Following the Supreme Court judgment of 2 February, the Secretary of State is currently considering her policy response to the review, and I hope to update the House by early May. I cannot give a specific date.

Furthermore I reiterate that, as regards the new routes introduced by the Bill to correct instances of historical legislative unfairness, it remains the Government’s intention not to charge in instances where there has been historical unfairness and/or discrimination. This is in line with our approach to other instances of historical unfairness, where waivers and exceptions were introduced in fee regulations, as is appropriate for provisions of this nature. The Government are currently exploring options in this regard for the routes introduced by the Bill. I hope that this reassures my noble friend to some extent.

However, it is important to consider the legislative history of the fee-setting regime, and the intent that has underpinned it. Since the establishment of the current nationality regime in the British Nationality Act 1981, registration of British citizenship for those who either have an entitlement under the provisions of that Act or who are applying on a discretionary basis under Section 3(1) has been contingent on payment of a fee. Current fee-setting for British citizenship is underpinned by the powers set out under Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014 which, as the Supreme Court has affirmed in its recent judgment, were explicitly authorised by Parliament and empowered the Secretary of State to set fees at a level that reflected the costs of exercising the function, the benefits that accrue to an applicant as a result of acquiring that British citizenship, and the wider costs of the borders and migration system. Parliament also explicitly authorised the maximum amount that may be charged in relation to an application for British citizenship registration at £1,500, through the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which sets the framework for the current fees set out in secondary legislation.

The wider application of these principles and the powers to set immigration and nationality fees have underpinned the Government’s policy over the last decade of moving the borders and migration system to an increasingly self-funded basis, reducing the reliance on the UK taxpayer. Accordingly, fees across several routes, including nationality, have increased to support those broader funding objectives.

However, it is important to be clear on the role that these fees play in supporting the essential work of the border and migration system and particularly in funding the critical activity that supports and safeguards the interests of the people in the UK. These activities, which include ensuring that the UK’s borders are secure from threats and illegal activity, the effective operation of resettlement schemes to support those who are in greatest need and the management of a visa system that attracts the best and brightest to contribute to the UK’s prosperity, are essential to the delivery of the department’s wider mission and objectives.

Any reduction in income from fees must therefore be considered in terms of its impact on these activities, with the likely result being that activity in those areas will be reduced or income must be recovered through other means. This funding includes support for front-line operations that keep the country safe. A need to secure funding through other means may impact on fees for economic routes where the department’s objective is to attract visitors and skilled individuals to support the UK’s economy, which in turn benefits all those who live in the UK, or it will place an increased reliance on the taxpayer to fund these activities, which may in turn reduce the funding available for other important government work.

As such, there is a complex balance of considerations that the Secretary of State must take into account when setting fees, and, in line with the charging powers established by Parliament through the 2014 Act, these have informed the current fees structure. Fees charged are kept under review, as they are in other countries, and, as I have stated, there are ongoing considerations regarding fees charged for citizenship registration specifically, the outcome of which we will share in due course.

Additionally, I emphasise that elements of the amendment, such as the requirement to except fees for children in local authority care, although of course well intentioned, would more appropriately be set out in fees regulations and should not be introduced in primary legislation. In addition, it is not appropriate for a duty to have regard to the need to promote British citizenship in primary legislation that is setting fees. I therefore request that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment for the reasons that I have outlined.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am humbled by the level of support expressed in the House this evening and outside the House from the Law Society of Scotland, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International UK. I pay tribute to the long-standing work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the support that I received this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Very seldom do the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I agree, but on this occasion I am delighted to have her support and that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others. I am particularly pleased to welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who speaks with great authority on these matters. As he described it, the Government are going in the right direction, but I argue that, this evening, I do not believe that they have gone far enough. Therefore, regrettably, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 83.

Ukraine: Visa Restrictions for Refugees

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend confirm that, under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill before us this afternoon and later this week, the Government will not seek to arrest and prosecute Ukrainian refugees who may happen to arrive on boats from northern France?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness asks me to stray into territory we will be visiting later, and I am afraid I cannot do that.