Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present these draft regulations to the Committee. This instrument amends existing regulations that relate to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which I shall call the sanctions Act. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will first set out some background to sanctions, in particular the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.

The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with it. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status; subject to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention of 1951, they cannot enter or remain here.

The 2020 regulations provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are then exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.

Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the Immigration Rules, they benefit from a similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore now in the perverse situation where someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protections than someone who is not.

I turn to the purpose of these regulations, which is to align the approach and correct this anomaly. The Government have considered how to address this and concluded that it is right that, when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act, people lawfully in the UK are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered.

However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. These regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend this instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation and for the Explanatory Memorandum. It is clearly important that the two processes—whether or not someone is eligible to have their immigration status accepted and whether or not they are subject to a sanction—should be kept separate. Can the Minister tell us whether there have already been any cases where these have become entangled? Why was this not picked up when the sanctions legislation went through the House? I recall our debates on that and do not remember this being flagged, although I remember that we had to sort out quite a number of inadvertent challenges in that legislation.

The Home Office states that this draft SI would “address a discrepancy” whereby provisions designed to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations, which the noble Lord has laid out, put people subject to an immigration sanction “in a better position” than people making human rights or protection claims under existing immigration rules. Once more, as with the other SIs this afternoon, that is a very interesting use of language: a discrepancy being in effect a mistake.

Again, I express my sympathy with officials, because of course these things happen. When departments have to shift away from their main aims at the same time as unscrambling legislation from our EU membership over 40 years, it is not surprising that this happens. I express sympathy with the officials who have had to deal with it, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, did in debates on the previous SIs.

I note that we have four officials here, who otherwise could be working on more substantial matters. I ask again, as I did in the previous debate: if we need such an SI to be processed with the manpower that we have here, how many more would we have to deal with if we removed the amount of secondary legislation that the Government propose and then had to sort out all the discrepancies that might creep in as a result? Given that 40 years would have to be unscrambled in the space of about a year, does he not think that that is rather unwise? There is nothing about leaving the EU which necessitates that, regardless of what his colleague implied. The Minister may have in his notes that same line as the rebuttal.

Leaving the EU is one thing but chucking out babies with bathwater when you do not intend to is clearly another. It happens so easily, as we can see from all these SIs this afternoon—all these discrepancies. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. This particular SI seems straightforward and we support it, but I look forward to his wider response.

--- Later in debate ---

Many of these SIs pass with limited involvement from noble Lords, but this small SI deals with a very important part of our Immigration Rules and laws and deserves a little reflection by us all. I will appreciate the Minister’s answers to my questions, and no doubt he will also respond to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in due course.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the considered debate and the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

I entirely agree that this is an important SI and am grateful for the support shown for it. It clearly closes an unfortunate lacuna that had been revealed. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, the discrepancy came to light as a consequence of a decision to impose designations in March. Clearly, the Committee will not expect me to go into the facts of individual cases, but that was the genesis of the regulation. Unfortunately, when sanctions are brought in at pace to achieve the vital objectives outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mistakes can occur in drafting. This was such an instance. It cannot be right that we let these people have a better position than those who would ordinarily make use of the asylum and humanitarian protection schemes. The cases are necessarily quite entangled, and obviously, as I have already said, I will not go into the facts surrounding them.

Travel bans are used to restrict the movements of those whose behaviour is considered unacceptable by the international community, those who are associated with regimes that threaten the sovereignty or independence of neighbouring countries, those who would seek to do harm, those who would seek to shelter themselves or their ill-gotten gains in other countries, and those whose aim is to profit from human suffering. The UK does not ignore its other international obligations. Those subject to a travel ban who claim fear of persecution or breach of their fundamental rights have the opportunity to make a claim before we take action to remove them from the UK. They have their statutory right of appeal against a decision to refuse their claim. If the appeal succeeds, the travel ban does not apply, meaning that they will not be removed or required to leave. It cannot be right that when sanctions can be imposed on someone, they can then come and go as they please, abusing our hospitality. Should they choose to leave the UK without a resolution on their claim, they should not find themselves in a more generous position than others.

In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the overall spread of Russian sanctions, I can confirm that, together with our international partners, we have imposed the largest and most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. The UK alone has sanctioned 1,200 individuals and over 120 entities since the start of the invasion, including 20 banks with global assets worth £940 billion and over 130 oligarchs with a combined net worth of over £140 billion, as well as introducing unprecedented trade measures.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Will the Minister repeat the sentence about oligarchs? Did he say million or billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I said billion. It is 130 oligarchs, with a net worth of over £140 billion. I share the noble Lord’s astonishment at that figure. We have frozen over £18 billion-worth of Russian assets under the Russia sanctions regime. This represents a vast increase of almost 4,000% from September 2021—a total of £44.5 million—underlining the scale and impact of our response in targeting Putin and his regime.

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we will of course continue to stand with Ukraine in support of its right to be a sovereign, independent, democratic nation. Russian aggression cannot be appeased.

To draw matters to a conclusion, as I explained earlier, these regulations simply seek to provide consistency while maintaining the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes and complying with our international obligations. I reassure noble Lords that these regulations protect our sanctions regimes from abuse and provide consistency with the wider immigration system. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Net Migration

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to meet their commitment to reduce net migration, given the estimate by the Office for National Statistics, published on 24 November, that net international migration to the United Kingdom was 504,000 for the year ending June 2022.

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

The Government are committed to controlling immigration and ensuring that it works in the UK’s best interests. Our immediate priority is continuing to tackle abuse in the system and prevent dangerous and illegal crossings. In the medium to long term, we will continue to strike a balance between reducing overall net migration and ensuring that businesses have access to the skills that they need.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, half a million immigrants in one year is truly extraordinary: more than the population of Manchester or Edinburgh. Admittedly, that includes 200,000 refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Even if you allow for that, it is now clear that the Government’s points-based system has opened up nearly half of all full-time jobs to immigrant workers. Will the Government now retighten the requirements for work visas for students and dependants so as to get a grip on the huge wave of immigration that they have so foolishly sparked off and which, rightly, is a very serious concern to many members of the public?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord rightly observes, the net migration figures estimated by the ONS this year reflect the very unusual international circumstances in which we find ourselves. Home Office statistics show that we have helped over 144,000 people from Hong Kong, 144,600 people fleeing the war in Ukraine and nearly 23,000 people from Afghanistan to find safety in the UK. This means that the current set of figures is an outlier. The level of immigration for study visas reflects government policy, in that we are encouraging students from other parts of the world to study at British universities, with the great benefit that brings both to Britain and to those people who have the benefit of a British education.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, overnight briefings on the issue of “safe country” take me back 20 years. Last week’s briefings in relation to overseas students would take us back 60 years. Will the Minister make absolutely clear that those briefings were incorrect—because they were economically illiterate, intellectually unsustainable and incredibly damaging to our education system?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I note what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, over the last decade, total immigration —which ran at half the level of the last 12 months—was equal to the combined populations of Southampton, Portsmouth, Oxford, Nottingham, Middlesbrough, Leicester, Exeter, Derby and Carlisle? We wonder why we have a housing shortage. Has my noble friend the Minister ever heard those who oppose any tightening of immigration restrictions recognise that they are condemning a whole generation of British-born young people to living at home or in cramped bed-sits until they are middle-aged?

[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.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Could my noble friend explain why the Government have limited the number of medical school places to 7,500? This deprives several hundreds and maybe thousands of our young people the chance to pursue a medical career. In the last five years, we have recruited 50,000 doctors from overseas, some of whom have come from less-developed countries, which I at least regard as a shameful practice.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I note what my noble friend says, but the level of provision of medical training is a matter for the Department of Health and the Department for Education.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true that one of the great attractions of this country is that people can come in and get employment without any real problem whatsoever, and that the major error that we have had is the abandonment of the policy we had in 2010 to have a form of identity for every individual in the country? This has now been exposed as a major failing of the then Tory and Lib Dem Government, and something needs to be done to address it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Government do not agree that the answer is identity cards.

[Lord Desai (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, should we not recognise that the people who pay thousands of pounds to people to carry them across the channel actually want to come here? They find coming here beneficial, and the economy finds it beneficial when they come. Why do we not have a system in which we distinguish between refugees and economic migrants and welcome economic migrants as a very good thing?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We have indeed such a system. The points-based immigration system is designed to entice to the UK those workers who wish to come who are qualified by reason of the scheme. The asylum system exists to assist those who are claiming asylum or other protection.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I put it simply to the Minister, following the questions he has had from around the House: would it not be helpful for a Minister of the Crown to stand up at that Dispatch Box and say, “Of course we need rules about migration, but this country benefits enormously from migration, and we should welcome that fact”?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the country benefits vastly from legal migration. Indeed, that is why we have arrangements to achieve that objective.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are about a quarter of a million overseas students whom we welcome to this country, but is he also aware that many of those also ask for dependent relatives to be brought in? Surely dependent relatives should not be allowed in. It is the students who require access, not their families.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The position is that the types of students who are now availing themselves of British educational opportunities tend to be older, and there are restrictions around the provision of visas for family members. They are restricted to those on a postgraduate course—broadly, not undergraduate courses—and to a course of nine months or longer, if the course of study is with an accredited institution with a track record of compliance with immigration requirements. It appears to be the case that, of the visas issued to students and dependants, about one in five go to dependants and there is no reason in the Government’s view to change that position at this time.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has been asked several times a question that, with great respect, he has not answered: why are international students, who bring significant income to our universities and are an ornament to them in many other ways, included in migration statistics, with or without dependants? They distort those statistics, which, frankly, does not serve the Government’s purposes very much. Why are they still part of the immigration statistics? He has not given us an answer to that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to clarify the position. The ONS prepares these estimates in its own way, and it is utilising on this occasion a new methodology derived from various sources to estimate, effectively, emigration as well as immigration. The choice is taken to include students, for reasons of transparency, and that seems to me entirely sensible. The number of visas issued to students is available to the Home Office as a figure. That is only a part of the picture when considering the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Green, was referring to in his Question, which are of course the estimates provided by the ONS.

Manston Update

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I am afraid I will repeat not only some of his questions but the many that I have asked the Minister on this issue over the last month.

On 31 October, the Home Secretary said:

“Manston … has very good medical facilities and all protocols have been followed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/22; col. 649.]

On 27 October, Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister, said:

“The basic needs of arrivals are provided … including … medical care.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/22; col. 401.]


When we had the Statement last Thursday, it felt like the Home Office had emptied Manston and dumped unfunded people, unscreened and unvaccinated, without access to their local NHS in their new venues.

It is good that things are starting to change, and that is why I thank the Minister. If he had anything to do with the message that came out on Friday afternoon that the spot accommodation arrangements that prevented people moving from Manston to hotels from accessing GPs have now been changed. It is a shame that it has taken repeated questions to make that happen.

On Saturday morning we heard that the man who died after staying at Manston had died from diphtheria, which was clarified by a PCR test, despite some earlier negative tests. One of the problems with diphtheria is that the symptoms are not always obvious. On 1 November, I asked the Minister whether people were being routinely screened and tested, but it appears that they are still not, let alone being vaccinated.

The spread of infectious diseases was highlighted by Charlie Taylor, Chief Inspector of Prisons, in his unannounced inspection of Manston and Jet Foil at the end of July. The report was published on 1 November, but I am sure that it is still the convention for Ministers to see a draft beforehand. It says:

“Facilities for the management of detainees with COVID or other infectious diseases were poor. Detainees were placed in a claustrophobic portacabin with no clear responsibility assigned for managing their care. Paramedic staff were unsure of any guidance, policy or procedure for the management of infectious diseases.”


What happened after the draft of this advice was seen by Ministers, prior to assurances given by Ministers, from the end of October onwards, that good healthcare and protocols were being followed?

Diphtheria is a notifiable disease because, in unvaccinated people and untreated cases, it has a fatality rate of 5% to 10%. It spreads in overcrowded communities whose health may be compromised for other reasons, which is absolutely typical for asylum seekers. What data is there for how many of the people held at Manston since the middle of October have now been screened, tested and offered vaccinations? The UNHCR, UNICEF and the American CDC all vaccinate refugees and migrant communities, and it is now compulsory if you come into America through the border with Mexico.

On Sunday, the Home Office said that infectious migrants will now be told to isolate in hotel rooms but, prior to this, the only advice about those in hotels was given to hotel staff, not local doctors and certainly not directors of public health. It is good that this is beginning to change.

Yesterday morning, the government webpage entitled “Protecting yourself against diphtheria” was updated—and that too is good. It is important to say that the wider public are not at risk; only people coming into contact with someone with diphtheria are at risk. The guidance now says:

“Everyone arriving to claim asylum in the UK is currently being offered a dose of a diphtheria containing vaccine and a course of antibiotics … to reduce the risk of diphtheria and some other infections.”


This should have been normal practice the moment the first case emerged, so why is it only starting to happen now?

The Statement says that an “enhanced diphtheria vaccination programme” will be “offered to all”. So I ask the Minister what the definition is of “those arriving”: does it cover everyone who has been at or through Manston since the numbers bloomed after Suella Braverman was appointed as Home Secretary, rising from 1,500 to 4,000 in the space of three weeks? Or is it only those currently at Manston? Or will it now be every asylum seeker in the country, as is the case with CDC in America?

I also ask whether those who come through Manston have also been screened for infectious diseases, including diphtheria and scabies? Who will be managing this; will the Home Office be funding screening and vaccinations? I hope so, because local health services should not have to pick up the tab.

The Statement says that “robust screening processes” on arrival will “identify proactively” those with symptoms. However, we know that diphtheria is asymptomatic. Two are currently hospitalised, one person is dead and there are at least 50 confirmed cases. We have had only about 50 cases in the last 10 years in the UK, but the directors of public health in local areas are still struggling to get access to information and resources, from either the Home Office or the UKHSA. When will that happen? If the Minister cannot answer all these questions, please can he write to me with some answers?

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

I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their speeches. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration were updated over the weekend by Dame Jenny Harries of the UK Health Security Agency, who confirmed that 50 cases of diphtheria had been reported in asylum accommodation. This had the unfortunate effect of being a consequence of the speed with which Manston had been emptied in response to the earlier concerns about the conditions at Manston. While robust processes and plans have now been put in place, it is right that we remain vigilant. As the noble Baroness observed,

“robust screening processes on … arrival … at Western Jet Foil … to identify proactively those with symptoms of diphtheria”

are in place, and the

“‘round-the-clock’ health facilities at Manston”,

which I previously referred to in this House,

“including emergency department consultants and paramedics”,

remain available to those at Manston and will readily identify conditions that those people may have.

Guidance is also available

“in multiple languages on spotting the symptoms of diphtheria”,

and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for noting that changes have made on the website in an effort to enhance the spread of that message. In addition,

“an enhanced diphtheria vaccination programme, offered to all those arriving at Manston”

is now in place, and

“of those who arrived at the facility this weekend, 100% took up that … offer”.

Further,

“testing for those presenting with symptoms and for close contacts”

of confirmed cases was also available,

“and those testing positive are being isolated in a designated place.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/22; col. 676.]

As the noble Baroness has observed, certain “isolation hotels” have been set up to provide facilities to make that isolation possible and easier for those who need it. Equally, special transport is provided to ensure that they can travel to their place of isolation until the symptoms of the condition have resolved.

On the question asked by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in relation to liaison with local health departments, the Home Office’s contracted accommodation providers are contracted to provide a liaison with health services, to provide those residents with health services, and to signpost them to local GPs and other health providers. Local authorities, too, are provided with £3,500 per person to provide their services to those in Home Office accommodation. That, of course, includes public health obligations on local authorities. As the Minister in the other place made clear, the department is going above and beyond the UKHSA baseline by instituting new guidance on the transportation of individuals displaying diphtheria symptoms.

It is clear that this is a very unfortunate consequence of the speed with which Manston was emptied in the run-up to the previous weekend, and steps are now being taken to ensure that all those in accommodation are offered a vaccination for diphtheria. Clearly, there is widespread awareness of the issue now.

On the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to the medical facilities at Manston, the comments in July bear no relation to the present position. As I said, I have visited those medical facilities and found them to be very impressive. They are not accommodated in the temporary accommodation to which the noble Baroness referred. Those working in that sphere do a fantastic job, and I thank them for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The answer is clear from Dame Jenny Harries that those with diphtheria contracted it prior to entering the UK. It seems that the conditions through which they travelled in other countries were such that clearly they were able to contract the condition—and that is most unfortunate.

As to the reason why it has taken us so long to take steps in relation to it, I remind the noble Baroness that comprehensive health screening has been available at Western Jet Foil and Manston. As recently as late October, only five cases of diphtheria were found to be present in the population at Manston, and those were not sent onwards to accommodation without being treated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, diphtheria is one of those conditions which can present without symptoms, so it is difficult to screen for. Further steps are being taken to preclude that occurring, as I have outlined.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the speed at which Manston was emptied was unfortunate—but of course that was not the problem, was it? The problem was the speed at which Manston was crowded, and for how long those people were held like that. Has the Minister in his department seen any embarrassment or even shame at these events?

[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.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, Napier barracks in Kent is still being used to house asylum seekers, despite an inspector’s report that said it was not fit for that purpose. Last year, an epidemic of Covid took hold there because of the unsatisfactory accommodation, with up to 24 people in dormitories. Can the Minister assure us that nobody went directly from Manston to Napier; that everybody at Napier is being screened for a disease which he says does not always exhibit symptoms; and that the conditions there are now suitable for people to be held?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Taking that question in reverse order, yes, the conditions are now suitable for those held there. I do not have the answer as to whether people were transferred directly from Manston to Napier barracks: I can make inquiries about that and write to the noble Baroness. As for her final point, on the provision of healthcare at Napier barracks, similarly, those operating that accommodation facility will provide healthcare and signpost healthcare facilities to those who are resident there.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, why will the Government not consider humanitarian visas, where people’s initial application for asylum could be considered in situ and they could be vaccinated against serious diseases before they arrived in the UK?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is because the Government believe in encouraging migration via safe and legal routes, and not by those who choose simply to cross the channel in a small boat.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I do not think the Minister answered the last question, because the whole point is that a humanitarian visa would be a new safe and legal route and it is one for which many of us have argued for quite some time. It would discourage people from travelling by boat. They could apply for a visa before they came and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, they could also be vaccinated before travelling.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I understood the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to ask me whether those who had arrived at Manston should be given a humanitarian visa and be inoculated. That is not the case. On the method that the right reverend Prelate asked about, there are safe and legal routes from the countries that were discussed in the earlier topical Oral Question. Those are the routes that are to be utilised.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

If the House will indulge me, I shall clarify my question. The Home Secretary was asked at the Home Affairs Select Committee last week what would happen to a genuine refugee, say from sub-Saharan Africa, where there are no safe and legal routes. Why could someone in that situation not make an initial application in country for a humanitarian visa and be vaccinated in country before they arrive in the UK? The clue in the question I asked previously was “before they arrive in the UK”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The short answer is that that is not the Government’s policy. We have safe and legal routes from the countries that I have already identified, and we do not propose to open any others.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said in reply to my noble friend Lady Ludford that he hoped that the private sector companies which fulfil the contracts would have a care for their staff. Is that not something that the Government should urgently check into? Do the Government themselves not have an obligation in the quite unusual circumstances we are talking about? Secondly, what arrangements are there for the families of patients—I call them patients quite deliberately, because that is how we should treat them—who are put into isolation? Are the families kept together? The Minister will understand that there is a whole ream of questions like this which the House would like to know the answers to.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Baroness is aware, the vast majority of those crossing the channel are single young men, so the issue has arisen in relation to single men. I do not know the answer about accommodation for any potential family members, but I will certainly ask the department and inform the noble Baroness of the outcome.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

May I have an answer to my question about shame or embarrassment?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am not sure that that is in order.

Hotel Asylum Accommodation: Local Authority Consultation

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, with 127,026 asylum applications outstanding and only 4% of people who have arrived by small boat having had a decision, is it any wonder the system is in chaos? The Government are scrambling around looking for hotel accommodation as an emergency response without proper consultation with local authorities, sometimes giving them only 24 hours’ notice of placing asylum seekers in their area. Is that not the case? Is it not also the case that, as a consequence, there are allegations of dirty, unsafe accommodation with, in one report, 500 rape alarms being issued? Most disgracefully of all, unaccompanied children are going missing, 222 so far. Where are they and how many more are there? It seems we cannot even protect our children.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right that, of the small-boat arrivals in 2021, 96% are still awaiting an initial decision, as the Minister in the other place said. However, we made more than 14,500 decisions in the year to June 2021, concentrating on deciding older claims, high-harm cases, cases with extreme vulnerability, and children.

The noble Lord alluded to the notification of local authorities. Clearly there has been difficulty in notifying local authorities. That has been a real focus for the department. I am unsure whether he will have seen the “Dear colleague” letter that went around the Members of the other place, notifying them that it will absolutely be the rule that they get at least 24 hours’ notice, but it is hoped to be longer than that. I would be very grateful to hear from any noble Lords who are concerned by any hotels they may be aware of where due notice has not been given to the local authority and to the Member for the relevant constituency.

As to the point about unaccompanied children going missing from hotels, any child going missing is extremely serious, which is why we work closely with local authorities and the police to operate a robust missing persons protocol to ensure that their whereabouts are known and that they are safe. We work to ensure that vulnerable children are provided with appropriate placements for their needs, and we have changed the national transfer scheme so that all local authorities with children’s services must support young people. Home Office and contractor staff identify cohorts of young people considered at greater risk of going missing and, of course, risk assessments and safety plans are undertaken on arrival in mitigation of this risk.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that I have raised the health service provision for those at Manston and when they have been dispersed elsewhere. Today, I am hearing from local authorities and directors of public health locally that scabies is increasing. It is racing through the hotels where these asylum seekers have been sent. In some places, the rate is 70% because they do not have the clean clothes and linen necessary for the clothes that have mite infestation to be thoroughly washed. Worse, the Home Office and Clearsprings have refused to provide specialist creams at those hotels for asylum seekers to use. Even worse, because of the scheme under which those being dispersed from Manston come, the usual grant to GPs is not made available, which means there is no money locally, so asylum seekers can use only 111 or 999. Will the Minister agree to meet to discuss this as a matter of urgency? I appreciate that health is not in his brief, but there are some holes, particularly about health funding and stopping this mass infestation of scabies.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly on my visit to Manston a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet the healthcare staff and visit the healthcare centre. I assure the noble Baroness that concern is paid to the health of those passing through Manston, and it is hoped that any conditions they suffer from at that time are treated, in particular with the topical creams that she suggests. I am concerned by what she said about what is happening with Clearsprings, but I am afraid that without a bit more detail, which I am sure she will provide, I cannot answer now, but I will do that. As to a meeting, certainly I am aware that she has raised this issue a number of times, and I am happy to have a meeting with her if that would assist.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in referring to the company Clearsprings Ready Homes, which has a 10-year contract to supply hotel accommodation. A couple of weeks ago it emerged that the company’s profits were up sixfold in the past year and that three directors had shared dividends of almost £28 million. I contrast that with the asylum seekers in hotels who get £8.24 each week to buy essentials, which amounts to little more than £1 a day. Does the Minister think that money going in dividends is the best way for government money to be spent?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Obviously it is not for me to comment on the entirety of the commercial operations of Clearsprings; nor do I know the extent to which the contracts for asylum accommodation are responsible for its profit margin, so it would not be appropriate for me to answer that question.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Home Secretary’s evidence yesterday in the other place, where she seemed to suggest that the only way that many asylum seekers could claim asylum in the UK is on arrival in the UK? In other words, the only way for genuine refugees and asylum seekers to claim asylum is to pay people smugglers to cross the channel and then claim asylum in the UK. Is the Government’s policy not feeding the business model of people smugglers rather than trying to dismantle it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, it is absolutely to the contrary. Safe and legal routes, such as the ones we operate in Afghanistan, and in Iraq and Jordan in the past, were designed to provide an opportunity for genuine refugees to make asylum claims to come to the UK. The idea that people can promote their own claims over those of others and cross themselves into the country in order to claim asylum is simply not a sensible way of running an asylum system. It is clearly contrary to the public interest that those able to afford to pay people smugglers are able to come here and claim asylum. That is why the safe and legal routes are the only proper way of delivering asylum sanctuary.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It is now a month since the report that there were 222 unaccounted-for children, as the noble Lord. Lord Coaker estimated. These children have come from a traumatic experience. How many, as of today, are unaccounted for in their location?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not have that information to hand. The positive news, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is that there are still no people at Manston. Everyone has been transferred into hotel accommodation. As I say, those who are unaccompanied minors are cared for separately in specially provided accommodation with special support.

Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is a probing amendment which would require the Secretary of State to review the use of injunctions for protest-related activity. This is to probe how injunctions are used, what their effects are, how they interact with police powers and responsibilities, and the problems facing their use, such as securing them within a reasonable timescale. The purpose of the amendment is for the Secretary of State to set out a review of injunctions in the widest sense.

We also heard from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about her Amendments 114 and 115, which would create safeguards against corruption and abuse. They would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for any decision not to consult, the results of any consultation, any representations made to the Secretary of State as to a proposed exercise of the power, an assessment of why other parties should not finance their own proceedings and assessments of why any proceedings have been brought by the Secretary of State at public expense rather than by private companies. Such publication would occur each time an exercise of the power is considered and annually on an aggregate basis so that we can look at the overall effect.

My noble friend Lady Blower, who like me is not a lawyer, expressed incredulity about the situation, which I share. As a layman, it seems to me that the Clause 17 provisions give the Home Secretary powers to bring civil proceedings against protesters at public expense. This is a surprising set of circumstances, and my noble friend’s amendments are trying to get the Government to justify that on a continual basis, which seems entirely reasonable.

Amendments 110, 111 and 112 are also in this group. This clause provides that the Secretary of State can use new injunction powers where they reasonably believe the conditions under the clause are met. These amendments would delete “reasonably believes” and strengthen it to

“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.

Amendment 113 would provide that the Secretary of State may bring civil proceedings under this clause only if it is not reasonable or practicable for a party directly impacted by the activity to do so.

I move on to Amendment 114. The clause provides that, before bringing proceedings under it, the Secretary of State must consult “such persons (if any)” that they consider appropriate. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons if they do not consult, the outcome of any consultation, representations made to the Secretary of State and a reason why the Secretary of State should bring the proceedings at public expense, rather than another party.

As the Minister has heard, there is substantial scepticism about many aspects of Clause 17. There are a number of amendments here seeking to probe the Government’s intentions, and we may well return to this at a later stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, recently we have seen protestors blocking key national infrastructure, potentially causing delays to the supply of goods and services. Clause 17 provides a Secretary of State with a specific mechanism to apply for an injunction in civil proceedings where it is in the public interest to do so, and where the effect of the activity is to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure, or to access to essential goods or services, or to have a serious, adverse impact on the public.

Contrary to the speeches that we have heard from noble Lords opposite, there is no constitutional dubiety about such a measure. This provision will support better co-ordination between government, law enforcement, local authorities and private landowners in responding to serious disruptive behaviour. You may say, contrary to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said earlier, that these provisions mean that the hypothetical man on the Clapham omnibus might actually make it to Clapham, rather than being delayed by roadblocks caused impermissibly by protestors.

The proposal does not affect the right of local authorities or private landowners to apply for an injunction themselves, but gives a Secretary of State an additional route to act—urgently in some cases—where the potential impact is serious and widespread, and where there is a clear public interest to intervene. I seek to reassure noble Lords who have raised concerns regarding this measure that it will ultimately be a matter for the courts and our judges to consider whether or not to grant an injunction application. All that this provision does is simply to allow a Secretary of State to bring a claim and to apply for an injunction; ultimately, the decision on whether or not the injunction is made is one for the judge. As we always would, there would be careful consideration of any such application made by a Secretary of State, and that would involve careful consideration of the evidence provided by the Secretary of State in support of an application for an injunction. This is the ultimate legal safeguard on the use of the powers in Clauses 17 and 18.

As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I again reiterate that this measure provides an additional mechanism for a Secretary of State to intervene. This device would be most beneficial where protest activity targets multiple sites, and transcends local boundaries and the property of multiple entities. In such circumstances the potential impact would clearly be widespread, and the clear public interest would therefore be that injunctive proceedings are taken by the Secretary of State, rather than a series of separate private entities. It is not in every scenario that the Secretary of State’s power to seek an injunction would be utilised, and there is no doubt that the prevailing situation would remain, and businesses would have a major role to play in obtaining their own injunctions.

Turning to Clause 18, where an injunction has been granted by a court, with a power of arrest attached, the powers will support the police in taking action earlier to respond to those who engage in disruptive and dangerous forms of protest. Enabling the court to attach a power of arrest to such injunctions is key to allowing the police to act more quickly to prevent the disruption escalating. Where there is no ability for a power of arrest to be attached to the injunction, the applicant may be able to apply to the court for an arrest warrant where they believe that the perpetrator has breached the provisions of an injunction, as is the case for injunctions secured by private entities and natural persons. However, this creates an additional step in the process of enforcement which can affect the pace at which disruptive behaviour can be curtailed. As such, the power of arrest provision in Clause 18 can prove to be a highly important tool in the available responses to prevent serious disruption happening in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, before the Minister resumes his speech, may I ask him about a word he used? I do not know if I misheard—and I have quite a good vocabulary—but I think he used the word “dubiety”. Does that mean dubiousness?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Right, I will add that to my vocabulary.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their interventions. Turning to the question about transparency, we will certainly engage on that, and I appreciate it. It is always important that government actions are transparent. It is clearly an important public principle, and on that we agree.

As to corruption, in this context, it is really not a terribly likely hypothetical scenario. I say that because, if one were an ignoble baron seeking to pursue an injunction to preclude some sort of serious disruption, it is unlikely that the cost of pursuing an injunction would be sufficiently high to warrant seeking the assistance of the Secretary of State in bringing that injunction. It would be more likely that such costs would be borne by the company or person themselves, given the urgency and the much larger costs incurred by the disruption occurring. While I accept that there is a hypothetical concern, therefore, I find it unlikely in reality that such an envisioned scenario would eventuate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling Amendment 116. Let me start by saying that I, again, recognise the sentiment in this amendment. It is important that the Government intervene only in matters that are serious and proportionate to the public interest. However, I wish to remind noble Lords that causing nuisance or annoyance to the public can have a far-reaching impact when it occurs on a widespread scale. The recent protests targeting the M25 have shown just that. Furthermore, while a Secretary of State may apply for the power of arrest to be attached to an injunction, it is for the courts to decide whether or not this is an appropriate measure.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Again, I understand and have considered the need for scrutiny and transparency, as I touched on earlier, and therefore I entirely understand the logic of the tabling of that amendment. None the less, it is the Government’s view that while a review is not needed to ensure that activity relating to these provisions is necessary, it is important that transparency is carefully considered, and I will ensure that that is done.

There are already several clear provisions in the Bill that serve to ensure that the use of these powers by a Secretary of State will be subject to scrutiny and safeguards. As has already been noted, of course, in Clause 17(5) there is a requirement for consultation as may be appropriate ahead of initiating civil proceedings. Moreover, as we have already touched on, civil proceedings can be issued in the interest of the public only when it is considered expedient to do so in the judgment of the judiciary hearing the claim. As I have already committed to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I will nevertheless consider what further clarity could be provided on the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might seek to initiate such proceedings. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. If I can try and get the sense of the House, we on this side feel that this is constitutionally dubious, potentially providing opportunities for corruption, and that it is a very serious step to allow the Secretary of State to apply for an injunction to prevent a protest. On the government side, the Minister thinks it is reasonable if lots of people are affected—different organisations, private and public—and that it would be expedient for the Secretary of State to represent all parties and apply for an injunction on their behalf. Therefore, there is a clear difference of opinion as to whether we are satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards, as opposed to the Minister being satisfied that is the case. As the Minister reflects on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, we too will reflect on what the Minister has said, and we will no doubt return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 110.

Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

And worse. Well, not quite worse, but I have done similar things, and that is the price you pay for democracy. Where you draw the line —before anyone takes me on, I suggest that the Just Stop Oil protesters have acted disproportionately—is an interesting debate and discussion to have, and the noble and learned Lord has done the Chamber great credit by bring it forward.

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

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate on this set of amendments. Before I begin, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is not present in her place, in respect of the comments made at the end of group 1, particularly those relating to the reasonable excuse defence being available before arrest and the recent specific case of the arrest of the journalist Charlotte Lynch. I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Sharpe: this was clearly wrong and should not have happened. Hertfordshire Constabulary has confirmed that additional measures are now in place to ensure that legitimate media are able to do their jobs.

More generally, I make clear that, to arrest someone, the police need to have reasonable grounds to suspect that they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Of course, we would expect the police to consider the likelihood of someone having a reasonable excuse when making arrest decisions. But the police must be able to intervene early to deal with serious disruption, without having to go through bureaucratic hurdles.

Turning to the group at hand, we have already discussed the reasonable excuse defence at some length today, and I will not detain noble Lords for too much longer. Specifically in relation to Amendments 9 and 10, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that trampling on the rights of the public in the name of environmental activism is not by default a reasonable excuse for locking on; nor does legitimate activity by the highly regulated energy sector constitute a criminal offence.

Turning to perhaps the most interesting part of the recent debate—regarding Amendments 11, 30, 41, 57 and 63—I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his amendments, which seek to ensure that the reasonable excuse defence is assessed by the courts with reference to an individual’s direct intentions, rather than with reference to any type of public interest they claim to be pursuing through an offence. This would prevent someone using an argument of public interest as a reasonable excuse for committing an offence. I also thank him for his excellent contribution to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certainly, and I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is important that we have clarity because this is clearly a very important point. In the Bill, the pursuit of lawful and legitimate industrial action constitutes a lawful exercise of that right and is not criminalised. However, that provision in the Bill does not read across, if you like, to all the other offences, and in particular is not found in any tunnelling offence. That is the point where I differ from the speech the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave moments ago. The reason for that—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He just said that, in other parts of the Bill, somebody engaged in a trade dispute is not criminalised by the offences contained in this Bill. However, we had a discussion in the Minister’s absence about the fact that it was a reasonable excuse defence once charged. In other words, somebody engaged in a trade dispute could be arrested, detained and charged by the police, which I would describe as being treated as a criminal, and it is only at the point after a charge and an appearance at a court that this defence is available. I guess that the Minister is technically right, in that somebody is not criminalised until they are convicted by a court, but we are really arguing semantics here. So the way that the Minister expressed himself—saying that, effectively, somebody involved in a trade dispute would not be in danger from the provisions of the Bill—is not actually accurate.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In Clause 7, “Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure”, one can see that, in subsection (2), “a defence” is provided

“for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that … (b) the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.”

I am sure the noble Lord can see how the protection for the right to be involved in a trade dispute is protected by that drafting—and that is certainly the clear intention of the Government.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that you cannot lock on in the furtherance of a trade dispute but you can picket in the furtherance of a trade dispute?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the provisions of the locking-on offence do not expressly contain the same provision. Therefore, it is correct to say that the Bill envisages a defence for the involvement in industrial disputes in relation to key national infrastructure, but there is no need for such a like provision in respect of locking on. I will obviously clarify that with my officials and respond to the noble Lord in on that.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I just seek some clarification. In response to the speech I made earlier about picketing, and since there is no intention in Amendment 60 to expand picketing, or any rights in relation to picketing, is the Minister therefore saying that, on everything that has been permitted by law in terms of picketing—which is already hedged with quite a lot of regulation and requirements—there is no intention in this Bill to make any alteration to the lawful carrying out of picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute? I believe that is what I am hearing the Minister say, and I hope that is the case.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Can I confirm with my officials and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that point? My understanding is that that is so, but I want to check that before I confirm.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

While the Minister is conferring with his officials, can he suggest to them that they look at Clause1(1) and put in some new words? After

“A person commits an offence if”,


he should add “without reasonable excuse”, if (a) they do this, (b) they do that and (c) they do the other. Then he should get rid of subsection (2).

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, and I will certainly ask them.

I think that I had reached Amendment 61. It similarly seeks to strengthen the defences available. As I have said already, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is very specific to each particular incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant, who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts, is required to prove them.

I turn lastly to Amendments 56 and 62, which seek to make it an explicit requirement for the police and courts to pay regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR when determining whether someone has a reasonable excuse for the offences of obstructing major transport works and interference with key national infrastructure. Although I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not see it as being necessary. It is of course right that the courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with the ECHR by reason of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, there is already legislative protection for the consideration of such rights, and it is not necessary to repeat that in this Bill.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Can I just seek clarification on what the Minister said earlier about tunnels not constructed by protesters and people causing serious disruption in those tunnels? My understanding is that the Minister is saying, “Don’t worry, trust the police.” I know that that is what the legislation says about someone causing serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, maybe London Underground workers operating a picket line in a tunnel constructed by London Underground: “Don’t worry about it, the police are reasonable people; they wouldn’t use the law in that way and, at the end of the day, the courts wouldn’t convict.” However, as the journalist who was trying to report on a protest found—the case that the Minister started his remarks with—we are still faced with the possibility of being arrested and detained for five hours by the police and of the police being unreasonable; that is by their own admission now. It seems an onerous experience for a completely innocent person to go through that, and to have to rely on the fact that, at the end of the day, the courts will not convict them, when they have been completely innocent from the start.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The short answer is that these cases are always going to be fact-specific. If there was a serious disruption in a London Underground tunnel, I suspect that there would potentially be many offences being committed other than those under this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe has already said, this situation will be considered and we will come back to the noble Lord. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I enjoyed the critique of reasonable defence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I was delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has come into the debate. However, I ask both of them not to be helpful to the Government—I just want to vote against everything in this Bill and they are making it difficult.

Public Order Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that short debate, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her warm welcome to this Committee. It has been a fascinating exercise to conduct my first Committee stage.

The general intention of this group of amendments is to reduce the maximum fines and the maximum sentences listed in Clauses 1 to 8. The maximum fines and sentences attached to these offences reflect, in the view of the Government, the serious harm and disruption that can be caused by these actions. It may be helpful if I set out just one example of that harm for the Committee. During the targeted and reckless activity by Just Stop Oil in August 2022, protesters dug two tunnels in an attempt to disrupt access to an oil terminal in Essex. This particularly dangerous protest tactic not only disrupted the operation of the terminal but had a knock-on impact on many others. First, it led to full and partial road closures impacting the public, local and private businesses and the council. Secondly, it resulted in ambulances and fire and rescue services being on standby due to the risk of collapse in the tunnel, thereby impacting on availability of those emergency services. Thirdly, it consumed a huge amount of police resources in responding to the operation, impacting on the police as well as the public, as officers had to be diverted from other duties.

Given this example and countless others, the maximum sentences and fines set out in the Bill are not only proportionate to the harm and disruption caused but necessary. It is worth saying that these are maximum sentences and it is plainly not the case that every person convicted under these offences will be given these sentences and penalties. Indeed, it is right to say that the maximum penalties are used only in the most egregious cases. The courts will consider the appropriate penalty in each case and, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, they will be considered on a case-by-case basis. For these fundamental reasons, I therefore respectfully disagree with these amendments and ask that Amendment 12 be withdrawn.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Will the Minister address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and I raised about how consistency in the levels of fines being imposed, particularly by lay magistrates’ Benches, will be achieved when there is absolutely no guidance in the legislation on the level of fine that should be imposed?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is, of course, frequently the case in legislation that there is no guidance on the face of the Bill as to the likely sentences that are imposed. It is very common for there to be sentencing guidelines formulated in the usual way by the judiciary. No doubt that is what will happen in relation to these offences. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will agree, these are the guidelines to which prosecutors routinely refer the court before the court passes sentence.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this all-too-sparse and short, but very important, debate about maximum sentences for new offences that are incredibly controversial. To address the Minister’s response directly, I am concerned that a briefing pattern is developing in the course of this Committee, where the Minister is given an example of something that protesters did that caused a lot of disruption and harm and so on, but we have yet to really understand why existing criminal law is not capable of addressing that. What is not being offered to the Committee—and perhaps not being advised to Ministers—is where the need is, given the scale of the public order statute book as it is. Within that, specific to this group, we are not being given a picture of where these offences sit in the hierarchy of criminal offences and criminal sentences.

Instead, we are being given a story about something outrageous that some protesters did and told that this is why the whole Bill is justified. We really need to get into a bit more specificity when we are playing with the criminal statute book and potentially sending people to prison or bankrupting them and so on. That is no disrespect to the Minister, his noble friend, his colleagues, or even his advisers. What is more traditional—certainly in this place—is that when offences are offered, and sentences to go with them, we are given a picture of where they sit within the current ecosystem of the criminal law; then we can really drill down into both the formulation of the offence and the sentence. People who disagree with me and, perhaps, welcome the offences, can nonetheless improve them and make sure that they are proportionate in their formulation and sentencing.

That has not happened in this debate, and it really must happen for us to do our duty as a Committee. That really must start to happen during the passage of this Bill, and it certainly will have to happen on Report. Concerns about incarceration, bankruptcy and maximum sentences, as well as fundamental concerns about the formulation of the offences themselves and even prior concerns about the need for them, are going to keep coming, group after group, in this Committee, and they will come again as we go down the road of consideration. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will take that in good part. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the provision of appropriate accommodation for asylum seekers after their departure from the Manston immigration centre.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his Question. We are committed to working closely with communities and stakeholders to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are housed in safe, secure and suitable accommodation. All appropriate options are being explored to ensure that suitable accommodation is secured as quickly as is necessary, and hotels are one element.

It may assist the noble Lord to know how the system works in terms of the steps of allocating accommodation. Clearly, the Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to provide accommodation support to destitute asylum seekers. At Manston this appears to be the large majority of those arriving in small boats. They are housed at Manston for as short a period as possible, then sent to ring-fenced hotel accommodation and on to other hotel accommodation. Once their application—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

I am not sure whether the Minister has finished his reply. Does he understand that when the Home Secretary uses language about an “invasion” and the Immigration Minister writes that “‘Hotel Britain’ must end”, these are incendiary utterances that might have been calculated to inflame hard-right hatred of refugees? Is he aware that, following the exposure of the squalid and dangerous overcrowding at Manston, the Home Office has abandoned asylum seekers to sleep rough on pavements in London, with no warm clothes or money? Is it not the case that the Home Office has been dumping asylum seekers, with no forewarning and no information, on councils already struggling to house people in need, or on homelessness charities, or leaving them in limbo in hotels for apparently interminable periods? How do these realities square with his claim to noble Lords that the mission of the Home Office is

“to treat all who come to our country with care and compassion”?—[Official Report, 9/11/22; col. 643.]

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said in my earlier Answer, we are required to provide support and accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are pending. Given the current pressing need to move people from Manston, we are necessarily considering all possible options and acting to secure suitable accommodation at pace. We endeavour to notify as early as possible the local authorities where the accommodation is located. The noble Lord will appreciate that this is an unprecedented situation that has required very quick action by Home Office officials.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that asylum seekers are not alien invaders to these shores but innocent people who are the victims of horrendous conflict in different parts of the world, such as the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ukraine and so many other places? Does he agree that it is only right that we extend hospitality to them?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with part of what the noble Lord says. Obviously, it is important that all those who come to seek asylum in the UK have the opportunity to have their applications considered, and that all those who are genuine asylum seekers are of course afforded all that this country can offer by way of protection. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the recent more productive talks with our French friends and allies. Has consideration been given to building, at joint expense but with a considerable amount from us, decent hostel-type accommodation in France, where the British officials who are now assessing applications can work and where people can be given a proper assessment and clean living conditions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what my noble friend says. Clearly, the recently concluded negotiations with the French concerned the use of Border Force officials within the French detection mechanism on the French coast, but I will certainly take back my noble friend’s suggestion to the Home Office.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I was at Manston last week and I have two questions. First, how many of the people currently at Manston have been there longer than 24 hours, which is the designated time? Secondly, the Minister said that the Home Office would endeavour to inform local authorities. I was in Oxford last week, where I was told that 200 people had arrived from Manston and there had not been a word of warning or consultation with the local authority.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I, too, was at Manston last week and I am sure that he will share my admiration for the hard work of the staff at Manston in very difficult circumstances. I can assure the noble Lord that the current figure for those at Manston as of 8 am this morning was 1,428. I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Lord information about the longest period of any person detained there. I will endeavour to find that information and write to the noble Lord. On the noble Lord’s Oxford question, I am afraid I do not know the answer but I will find out and write to him.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, of course we are delighted at the hard work that the people at Manston are putting into this, but there is a very serious problem indeed. Just a few days ago, I had an email from one of my clergy who said that, during the week, large numbers of asylum seekers were moved in, without any warning to the local authority or local partners, and it has caused chaos. That means not only that we do not have the statutory support in place but that voluntary groups such as churches, which are trying to offer support, simply have no warning. Will he go back to his officials? We simply need to get the communication right and we will all work with the Government and other partners to try to solve this very difficult, agonising problem.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate. The issues surrounding the allocation of accommodation are certainly the subject of concentrated effort by Home Office officials, and it is the intention to improve notification. I add that we are incredibly grateful for the activities of church groups and others who help provide assistance to those accommodated in hotels.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, it appears, worryingly, that the Home Office is still not talking to the directors of public health in local areas receiving people from Manston. On 1 November, the Minister said that there were four cases of diphtheria. I am hearing that there are now nearly 40 cases, and we know that people are not being tested as they leave Manston. The Minister offered to write to me before; will he now agree to meet to discuss this urgent health issue?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My understanding is that there are 12 diphtheria cases, but I will certainly make further inquiries in light of that. I can assure the noble Baroness that healthcare in contingency asylum accommodation is a priority. Those contracted to the Home Office endeavour to ensure that people accommodated in hotels or other contingency accommodation are signposted to GP practices, and there is local health screening in most cases.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain to me how it is possible to regard people coming from Albania, which is a stable and democratic country, as asylum seekers, and how much is it costing the taxpayer to put these people up in hotels?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, a large number of those crossing are from Albania. It is understood that around 12,000 of those who have crossed this year have been from there, and it is right to say that Albania is a safe country. Migrants are entitled to avail of the asylum application process and those applications are considered in accordance with the procedure as it currently stands. This matter clearly needs to be considered and is being considered.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation and Safeguarding

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Manston is a catastrophic failure of government policy. Was the local Conservative MP not right when he said it was “wholly avoidable”? Can the Minister explain how it was possible that the Government allowed the numbers to rise to more than 4,000? Was legal advice ignored? The numbers at Manston are now reduced, but what consultation is taking place with local authorities about the use of hotels? How are families and children to be kept safe? For example, will DBS checks be made on all staff so that we can ensure that families and children are safe and housed appropriately?

The Government need to get a grip. They need a proper plan and they need to sort out the administration, which is in chaos, as we saw again today, with asylum applications having risen by more than 305% in the last five years and excessive lengths of time before any decision is made. If the Government cannot sort out the administration, they will not sort out any problem. Instead of firefighting, the Government need to get a grip.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government have got a grip; the Labour Party has no plan. I am glad to report to the House that the numbers at Manston have fallen since this Answer was given in the House of Commons. There are now some 1,147 people held at Manston, as at 8 am today, and the numbers are continuing to decline. Every effort is being made by Home Office staff to rectify the position that has occurred. I am incredibly grateful for all the hard work they have done in very difficult circumstances.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place said the crisis at Manston was due to an “unprecedented strain” on the immigration system and that the Government inherited a broken immigration system. My understanding is that in 2002 the UK received more than 80,000 asylum claims and in 2021 it was fewer than 50,000, so the situation is not unprecedented. In 2011, the backlog of asylum claims was 11,000, and it is now 118,000. In 2014, 85% of initial decisions were made within six months, but the figure is now 5%. The system was not broken then but it is now. Will the noble Lord ask the Minister in the other place to correct the record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. No error was made by Mr Jenrick when he addressed the other place. He was correct to say that the conditions facing the border staff at Manston are unprecedented. We have never had this number of unlawful crossings of the channel. The situation has not been faced before. As the noble Lord rightly observes, there is a problem with the processing of asylum claims. Every effort is being made to accelerate the pace at which asylum claims are resolved. It is clear that there is a backlog, and work is being carried out at pace to develop a method by which that backlog can be reduced.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am not a member of Labour but I resent that snipe from the Dispatch Box. It is not appropriate here. We are not a student debating society; we are not even the Commons. We respect each other so, please, no more snipes like that.

Secondly, back in July a report said that detention was already often for much longer than 24 hours and that there was overcrowding. Why did the Government not act then? They clearly did not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The height of the numbers at Manston was on 30 October. The Government acted as rapidly as they could from that date to reduce the numbers held. They reflected the conditions and the numbers crossing, which therefore led to an increase in the numbers held for processing at Manston. Clearly, the Government’s intention is to return Manston wholly to a processing facility not performing any accommodation function.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that however difficult this all is, these are people? Many are people in considerable difficulties. Therefore, for them to have to wait the length of time they are now waiting is, frankly, unacceptable. Also, does he agree that the language used should be the language of compassion, not of attack? Will he undertake to say to the Home Secretary that we want to hear voices showing that she understands that these are people and we ought to care about them?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. The principal mission for the Home Office in respect of these people is to treat all who come to our country with care and compassion, to seek to understand why they have come and then to treat their asylum claims accordingly. I could not agree more with my noble friend.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the sage counsel from the Minister’s noble friend, if the Minister were an asylum seeker in a detention facility, perhaps from a war-torn part of the world, how would he feel to hear the Home Secretary arriving not by a discreet route but via a military helicopter?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness refers to the use of the Chinook by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The use of that helicopter was so that she could see the operations in the channel; it was not for any purpose of sending some sort of message to those residing at Manston. Clearly, it was reasonable given the time available and the items that had to be viewed by the Home Secretary. It is very important that my right honourable friend has every opportunity to see the whole system, so that she understands and can bring forward solutions.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that Manston will now remain a 24-hour facility only, in a way that can be scaled up if necessary, and that no children are detained there at all—or, at least, are not detained with adults who they do not know?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office takes very seriously its responsibility towards unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It seeks to place them into separate accommodation as early as can be achieved. As I say, the welfare of children is among its first priorities.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, despite what the Minister has just said, there is growing concern among civil society groups about what is happening to children caught up in this asylum mess. Can the Minister say exactly what safeguarding mechanisms are in place to protect these children, and to ensure that no child is wrongly classified and treated as an adult?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Clearly, every person who arrives at Manston and says that their age is below 18 is the subject of an age assessment—that is, a neutral evaluation of that status. If they are believed to be children then they are treated, as I say, as a key priority for the Home Office and housed in special hotels, which are secure and provide the necessary support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, we now know that the far-right attack committed by firebombing a migration centre in Dover was done by a man inspired by far-right extremism. Can my noble friend assure this House that conversations are taking place within the Home Office, and government generally, advising colleagues that sensationalist language from political leaders leads to real consequences and that they should refrain from using it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, I agree with the noble Baroness that sensationalist language should be avoided. I am afraid that, at this stage, I cannot comment further on the firebomb attack, which is obviously still the subject of investigation by the police.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the hotels and the special situation that unaccompanied minors are being kept in. But the fact is that they are being kept in these hotels with security guards outside for many months, with very little support. A report last month made it clear that they get no education, informal or formal, while they are in those hotels. Is the Minister satisfied with that?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s question was predicated on the fact that nobody in the hotels was allowed to leave but that is not the case. Forgive me if I misunderstood her question. As I say, significant steps are clearly taken to afford facilities for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to inform her about the education opportunities. I am afraid I do not have that information immediately to hand.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench place. Whatever way you look at the appalling conditions at the Manston processing site, with overcrowding, disease and disorder, the conclusion is that it is the fault of this Government, whether because of the woeful track record in processing asylum claims or the alleged failure to commission accommodation from which asylum seekers can be moved on from Manston. That, coupled with the reckless rhetoric used by the Home Secretary and the Government towards asylum seekers, fuels a false narrative that results in the kind of attack that we saw at Western Jet Foil, which is now being treated as a terrorist incident.

Asylum claims in the UK are almost half what they were 20 years ago: over 80,000 asylum claims were made in 2002, and just over 40,000 in 2021. There is currently a 20-week wait just to register an asylum claim and, on average, over 400 days before an initial decision is made. At the end of March, 89,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, which is quadruple the number in 2016.

The local MP alleged on the “Today” programme on Monday that the overcrowding at Manston was deliberate, as the Home Office had decided not to book more hotel rooms to accommodate asylum seekers. Sir Roger Gale MP today repeated his claim that it was a failure of the Home Office to commission move-on accommodation, despite what the Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place. Can the Minister confirm who is telling the truth?

Yesterday, the Telegraph quoted a Minister who said that Suella Braverman blocked the use of hotel rooms for migrants to “process them quickly”. Mark Spencer MP, the Farming Minister, when asked about the report that Ms Braverman had “put the block” on hotel rooms being used for those arriving on British shores, told Sky News that it was

“because she wants to process them quickly”.

We have the local MP and the Farming Minister both saying that Ms Braverman had put a block on hotel rooms, while the Home Secretary herself said that she had not. Who out of those Government Ministers, senior Conservative MPs and the Home Secretary is telling the truth?

The overwhelming majority of those who have been crossing the Channel in small boats in recent years have been genuine asylum seekers—not because I say so but because the overwhelming majority have been granted asylum status by the Home Office. So why is the Home Office calling those genuine refugees “illegal migrants”, when clearly they are not? Even the Home Office website, announcing the Manston facility, describes it as a

“processing site for illegal migrants”.

That was in December 2021, even before the Nationality and Borders Act. Meanwhile, an Ipsos MORI poll says that only 10% of British people think that immigration is the number one problem facing the UK.

Yesterday, we had the Home Secretary describe those crossing the Channel in small boats as an “invasion”. Not only is that outrageously dangerous rhetoric, particularly when the world is dealing with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, but this morning we had the Immigration Minister saying that politicians had to be careful in the words they used. Which Minister does the noble Lord agree with—the Immigration Minister or the Home Secretary?

The Conservative Party has had seven years in government when it has been in sole control of our borders. As the Home Secretary herself has said, the asylum system in the UK is broken. Does not the Minister agree that seven years is more than long enough to repair any broken system, and therefore it is time that this Government made way for a Government who can mend it?

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

Thank you, my Lords. I shall deal first with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. In relation to the attack on Western Jet Foil, I can confirm that Counter Terrorism Policing South East has now taken the lead from Kent Police in investigating the incident. Detectives have worked hard to establish the exact circumstances, including the motivation surrounding this incident, which happened at 10.20 am on Sunday. During the incident, as noble Lords will know, a number of crude incendiary devices were thrown outside Western Jet Foil and into the premises by a man who arrived at the scene alone in a car. The suspect’s vehicle was quickly located nearby, and the man was found dead inside; he has since been identified as Andrew Leak, aged 66, from High Wycombe.

What appears clear is that this despicable offence was targeted and likely to be driven by some form of hate-filled grievance, although this may not necessarily meet the threshold of terrorism. At this point, the incident has not been declared a terrorist incident, but it is being kept under review as the investigation progresses. A search warrant was carried out at the property at High Wycombe on Monday 31 October, and a number of items of interest were recovered, including digital media devices, which are being examined as quickly as possible.

Due to the nature of the evidence gathered so far, it is clear that officers with specialist knowledge, resources and experiences are best placed to lead this work to determine the motivating factors. There is nothing currently to suggest that the man involved was working alongside anyone else and there is not believed to be any wider threat to the community in the High Wycombe area or in Dover. Detective Chief Superintendent Olly Wright, head of the CTPSE, said:

“This was a traumatic incident for everyone involved, and the wider community and we’re working hard to establish what led to the events on Sunday morning.”


It is right to give space for these investigations to reach their conclusion and it would be inappropriate to second-guess any conclusions at this stage. I echo the thanks given yesterday in the other place for the work of Border Force and the first responders to this appalling incident.

I turn to the second question raised by the noble Lord, about conditions at Manston today. There were 3,629 people at Manston as of this morning. There were no arrivals today, due to the weather in the channel, and conditions are stable and improved routinely, as the Home Secretary set out in the other place in her Statement. Some 332 migrants were rehoused in alternative accommodation today and it is hoped that further transfers will be possible during the course of the week. I can confirm in relation to the other question that the noble Lord asked me, about the health of the people detained at Manston, that there were four cases of diphtheria. Those people have been treated and cases of various skin conditions have also been addressed. The healthcare provided at Manston is first class and, indeed, for many of the people detained at Manston, it is the first time they have had medical intervention for a very long time. The conditions being identified are ones that have clearly been prevalent prior to their crossing the channel, and it is excellent that the medical staff at Manston are able to provide that care for those people.

On the question of waiting times for asylum processing, it is correct that, as the Home Secretary said in the other place yesterday, this system is approaching its breaking point and needs some serious intervention. That is precisely what this Government will do. The cause of this is the unprecedented number of illegal crossings of the channel to the United Kingdom, which has put a system designed for many fewer migrants under extreme pressure. The staff of Border Force and of the Home Office more generally are working at pace to secure a resolution to these asylum claims and to expedite the conclusions of their applications.

The noble Lord asked me whether we need to consider other options. I am, of course, happy to confirm that co-operation with the French is key to addressing this issue. Already since the start of the year, co-operation with the French has stopped more than 29,000 illegal crossings, and joint work with France continues. An important aspect of our response to illegal migration is with the French doubling the numbers patrolling the beaches. That work and certain negotiations with France will continue in an attempt to reduce the numbers crossing the channel, particularly during these very dangerous winter months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend to his responsibilities. Does he recognise the inconvenient truth that it is almost impossible—perhaps entirely so—to deal with this issue without agreement with France going far beyond the level of co-operation to which he referred? Will he draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the agreement reached with France in 1995, under which it agreed to take back those who illegally entered the United Kingdom from France—they enter illegally, even if they subsequently claim asylum—and which it honoured?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me and my department of that very valuable agreement. Certainly, the best solution to this problem would be an agreement with France under which it accepted the return of everyone who crosses the channel. There could be no stronger deterrent to crossing it. I will of course encourage officials to look at the agreement made in 1995 and see what steps can be taken to revive it.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, initiation rites are pretty tough in some cultures, but none the less I too welcome the Minister to his place. I declare an interest as a fellow member of 39 Essex Chambers, where lawyers act for and against the Government without demonising each other. Of course, the demonisation of their most vulnerable clients is worse. Did the Minister see the comments by the very well-respected charity, HOPE not hate? Its policy director said:

“The terrible incident at Dover does not stand in isolation. It is the result of repeated demonisation … of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees by the government and by the media.”


As an excellent lawyer, the Minister will know that, by definition, because of the non-penalisation doctrine in the refugee convention, a crossing that eventually results in refugee status was never an illegal crossing. Finally, does the Minister agree that it is not helpful or appropriate to refer to the current refugee crisis as an “invasion” of our south coast?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. She is right to observe that we have that common interest in terms of our professional origins. I imagine her question relates to the question posed in perhaps more clear terms by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the use of the word “invasion” by the Home Secretary. I take the view that the expression the Home Secretary used was intended to—and did—convey the scale and challenge we face as a country from the numbers crossing the channel. Millions of people across this country are rightly concerned about that and want to know that we have a robust but secure asylum system. A significant proportion of those arriving on our shores are economic migrants, many from countries such as Albania. A quarter of all migrants this year came from Albania, which is demonstrably a safe country. The Home Secretary and the entire ministerial team will see what they can do to bear down on those numbers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Statement says that 12,000 people have arrived at both Manston and Western Jet Foil since Ms Braverman became Home Secretary in September, and 9,500 have already been transferred out. As the Minister mentioned, there have been confirmed cases of diphtheria and other infectious diseases at the very overcrowded Manston centre in the last month. Diphtheria is a notifiable disease under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and directors of public health and their local authorities have statutory duties to manage notifiable disease outbreaks, including tracking, testing and tracing not just those with the disease but their contacts. Can the Minister explain why the Home Office has refused to work directly with directors of public health and their local authorities in the areas receiving these asylum seekers from Manston, despite repeated requests?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I do not have the answer, so I will find out what it is and write to her.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords, those of us who have had the misfortune to be an MP representing a detention centre will know that the detention estate has had failings for many years. One of those is that the appeals rate has rested at about 42% against the Government for many years; it was that last year as well. Does the Minister not think that, if the Government were able to make the right decisions on asylum requests in the first place, we would have fewer people in the detention estate and would be making quicker decisions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. Clearly, the process for considering asylum decisions needs improvement—that is something we are committed to—and the appeal rate clearly reflects some mistaken decision-making. However, it is right to say that certain cases on appeal will consider matters that were not before the original decision-maker, so those cases do not reflect a particular error. The statistic itself does not suggest entirely a situation which is indicative of flawed decision-making by Home Office officials. However, as I say, this is an area on which we shall work.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister—notwithstanding the fact that he is a lawyer—because he went to a Scottish university, so he must be okay. However, he must appreciate that in 12 years of a Tory Government we have had a lot of rhetoric and promises but very little practical action, except for gimmicks such as the flights to Rwanda that have never taken place. Everything seems to be done to appease Nigel Farage and his cohort, unfortunately, and the awful racists who surround him. To ask the Minister a specific question, he said that he could not have anticipated the huge influx of immigrants, refugees and migrants across the channel. Why not? Why could it not have been anticipated? What are the Government doing now to anticipate what will happen in the future? The Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, said on the radio this morning that he expected the figure would be 50,000 by the end of the year. How does he know that? What are the Government doing to try to mitigate that and reduce the numbers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The answer to that, as the noble Lord well knows, is to try to produce policies which deter people from seeking to attempt the dangerous channel crossing. That is precisely why we have entered into this agreement with the Government of Rwanda: to seek to disincentivise people from crossing the channel.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

It is not working.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that it is not working; the point is that it has not had the chance to work because of the prevailing legal challenge. Once the barriers to the policy are removed and it starts to work, we will see the number of people attempting to cross the channel dropping.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I add my welcome to the Minister. On the issue of disincentives, there has been speculation that the conditions at Manston are being kept deliberately bad as a disincentive. Could the Minister be categorical that the Government would never do that on ethical grounds, and that they recognise that that would not prove an adequate disincentive in any case?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard about the conditions suffered by people held in these establishments. I cannot help thinking that life must be very difficult for the staff who work there. I imagine that all their instincts are to do their very best by those who are detained or who are there under any other category. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what support is being given to staff to cope with this situation.

Quite separately, in his response to the question about the appeal rate, making the point that issues come up on appeal that had not been considered in the initial application, would he not agree that that may be indicative of a failure of the casework, a lack of curiosity and a failure to raise the right questions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I entirely share her concern for the staff at Manston and Western Jet Foil who have to work in difficult conditions. I have made a point of ensuring that officials are fully alive to these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that the Home Secretary had yet to visit Manston. As I understand it, she is going to visit later this week, and I can reassure the House that I am visiting next week. I have absolutely no doubt that, on all of those visits, the present concerns of the staff will be taken into account.

As I understood it, the noble Baroness’s question in relation to appeals effectively asked whether this showed a failure by decision-makers to take into account matters which had come to light later. That is not routinely the case. Usually what happens is that a fresh claim is advanced by the applicant and/or there is a fresh set of facts; for example, the development of a subsequent relationship.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen over the last couple of days what seems to me to be an almost obsessional pursuit of the Home Secretary, who is dealing with a series of extremely difficult, substantive problems. It is a pursuit on the basis of leaks, anonymous briefings and the usual oversensitivity about words—though if we are going to be sensitive about words, I suggest that “racist” is one that should not be used without a degree of caution. Does the Minister condemn this practice of leaking against a sitting Minister? Does he agree that what the British people want the Home Secretary and the department to do is get on with solving the substantive problem, which means making the country less attractive to illegal migrants, looking at the international legal framework in which we are operating and improving the performance of his department?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. It is very important that the Home Secretary is able, without unnecessary distraction, to get on with the job of resolving this very difficult situation. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the support he has expressed for the Home Secretary. I am sure that this issue will be front and centre of all her decision-making.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, what we have seen reported in the media is shocking—diphtheria, scabies and horrific conditions at the site. The Government have been in power for 12 years and we have had about seven Home Secretaries. What is going to happen next? It is not as though this is a new problem. The Government have had many years to solve it. Repeated Bills and Acts of Parliament, meetings with the French and all sorts of things have been going on, but here we are and the problem is getting worse and worse. I am sure that the noble Lord is shocked by that as well. What is going to happen now to make things better? The Government have had a very long time to sort this out.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will recall, when Sajid Javid was the Home Secretary, only some five years ago, the number of people crossing in small boats was only 200. The problem has become significantly worsened by the success of Border Force in closing off other methods of illegal entry. That perhaps puts in context the fact that we now anticipate 40,000 people crossing the channel—that is half the size of the British Army. This is a problem of great seriousness which requires a reaction that needs to be commensurate with the problem we are now facing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I should have said that I welcome the noble Lord to his new position and wish him well.