Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2022
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for explaining this order. Schedule 7, in particular, and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are controversial in providing powers to the police and other agencies to stop, question, search and if necessary detain anyone who is travelling across the UK border, without reasonable suspicion, to require them to answer questions and be subjected to a search, in order to establish whether or not they appear to be a person who is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The exercise of the power remains controversial, with many being detained and missing flights as a result, for example, with the guidance saying:
“Although the selection of a person for examination is not conditional upon the examining officer having grounds to suspect that person of being engaged in terrorism, the decision to select a person for examination must not be arbitrary.”
Despite the guidance giving examples, it remains unclear where the line is between “reasonable suspicion” and “not arbitrary”.
However, we debated these powers extensively at the time. While we remain of the view that there needs to be reasonable suspicion, we accept that these regulations are not about either the original power or the new power provided for by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but about revising the codes of practice in relation to Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000. A change in the use of the powers under Schedules 7 and 8 has been brought about by Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to enable those crossing the English Channel in small boats, who may initially evade detection, to be questioned and detained under Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 away from the border, as the noble Baroness has explained.
As she has also explained, there are safeguards in place. The powers can be exercised only by specially trained and accredited officers; the subject must have been apprehended within 24 hours of arrival on land in the UK, and no longer than five days must have passed since the day of their detention; and they are detained under a provision of the Immigration Acts. The Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.5, talks about persons detained under paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1972. I could not find an Immigration Act 1972. Do the Government mean paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which refers to a person found on premises where a warrant has been issued to search for people thought to be liable to examination or removal from the UK? Perhaps the Minister can clarify. There is also a safeguard to tell the person detained that the questions put under Schedule 7 about terrorism—as the Minister has explained—are not for the purpose of obtaining evidence or information on immigration offences.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2022
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 11 May. Following the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—I take this opportunity to remember again the victims of that atrocity—in November 2019, the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—used to supervise terrorists and terrorism-risk offenders on licence in the community. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power and an urgent power of arrest. These powers were taken in response to recommendations made by Mr Jonathan Hall QC following his review of MAPPA.
These regulations relate to the new power of personal search, the creation of which was also recommended by the Fishmongers’ Hall Inquests—Prevention of Future Deaths report. The personal search power has been inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 as new Section 43C of that Act by the 2022 Act. The new search power commences later this month on 28 June. As set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new search power will apply across the UK, enabling the police to stop and search terrorist and terrorism-connected offenders released on licence who are required to submit to the search by their licence conditions. The officer conducting the stop and search must be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the power for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
The Government are clear that sensitive powers of stop and search should be subject to the code of practice setting out the basic principles for their use. Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of search powers that are conferred by that Act. These regulations amend Section 47AA so that it extends to cover the new search power inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 by the 2022 Act. Subject to Parliament’s approval, this consequential amendment will create a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a revised code of practice that includes guidance on the exercise of the power conferred by new Section 43C.
In anticipation of Section 47AA being amended, I can confirm that we are already in the process of engaging relevant stakeholders and updating the code of practice to reflect new Section 43C stop and search power. We plan to lay an order this summer alongside the draft revised code of practice for Parliament’s consideration and approval. As such, Parliament will have the opportunity to review and debate the revised code and its contents in due course. The regulations being considered today simply relate to the technical and consequential matter of whether to amend Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 to enable the Government to update the relevant code of practice in the manner that I have outlined. I think it is something the Committee will very much support. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and I associate myself with her remarks in relation to those affected by the Fishmongers’ Hall incident. One of the most important roles of the state is to protect its citizens from terrorism and we support every provision that can be shown to work in practice in helping to prevent and detect terrorism.
This is yet another stop and search power exercisable by the police. Generally, we are against any expansion of police stop and search powers, on the basis that existing powers are sufficient, because an increased use of stop and search does not generally lead to a reduction in crime and because of the negative impact of stop and search on visible minorities. For example, where the police are required to show suspicion, black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched; and where no suspicion is required, black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. In addition, Home Office research shows that, above moderate levels, increasing stop and search has little or no impact in reducing crime.
However, this power—enabling the police to stop and search an offender released on licence for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism—appears, on the face of things, to be reasonable and proportionate. We have seen from tragic instances in the recent past, such as the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, that assessing the threat posed by those convicted of terrorism offences is very difficult to determine, and even those who are assessed as no longer a threat to the public and suitable for release under licence can, in reality, pose a threat to the public.
It will mainly be for the Parole Board to determine whether someone should be subject to the new powers as a condition of their licence, but the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.2 says, “In most cases” the Parole Board will decide whether somebody should be subject to the new power. Can the Minister explain in what other circumstances someone could be made subject to these stop and search provisions, if that is not made a condition of their licence by the Parole Board?
As the noble Baroness explained, the regulations are not about the power itself—created by the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 inserting new Section 43C in the Terrorism Act 2000—but are to ensure the requirement on the Secretary of State in Section 47AA of the 2000 Act to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of stop and search powers conferred by that Act. That also applies to the new stop and search provision. It seems a bit cart before horse to make the requirement through these regulations and only then to prepare amendments to the code of practice, which will then be laid before Parliament for approval later this year, as the noble Baroness just explained.
All in all, while we support these regulations, in so far as they place a requirement on the Secretary of State to include the new power in the code of practice required by Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000, it seems to be much ado about nothing until we see the revised codes of practice.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I thank the Minister for her clear and precise introduction to these new regulations. I associate myself with her remarks about remembering the victims of the Fishmongers’ Hall attack.
We also welcome these recommendations and are grateful to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, for the review he conducted following the attack. We support these powers, which were added to the PCSC Act. As the noble Baroness knows, we will work with the Government on issues of national security, because there is no difference between any of us in wanting to ensure that our country is safe. So we support this SI which, as the Minister pointed out, is technical and simply ensures that the Secretary of State is required to prepare a code of practice to govern the new stop and search power.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, stop and search is an important tool, but is a serious use of the state’s power and so it is vital that it is used proportionately and effectively. We welcome that this power is targeted at terrorist offenders who are out on licence; it will be part of their licence conditions. In other words, we are allowing a released terrorist offender, out on licence, to have their person searched, which Mr Hall said was needed. We support that change.
Can the Minister tell us when the code of practice will be published? I think she did, but can she reiterate, for the benefit of the Committee, exactly when the code will be published and laid before Parliament? Is it the case that the power we are debating cannot be used until that code of practice is laid before Parliament and agreed?
Will the code outline the sorts of circumstances under which the power might be used? In other words, what is the precise purpose of such a search conducted under these powers? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised, what difference is there between the vast majority of offenders who will have their licence agreed to by the Parole Board and some others? It is not clear what is meant by “others” and who will decide who they are.
Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) and Licensing Act 2003 (Personal and Premises Licences) (Forms), etc., Regulations 2022
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have two sentences. My noble friends referred to examples of problems encountered by the people affected. I am sure other noble Lords will have thought, as I did, that if there are problems at the border and if airlines cannot cope—and it is their bread and butter to deal with status—is it any surprise that employers, landlords and so on have difficulties too?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, comprehensively set out the concerns with this statutory instrument, powerfully reinforced by my noble friends Lord Oates and Lady Ludford in particular. On a positive note, the instrument adds categories of people who can rent housing, but I am afraid that is about it.
There are two revised codes of practice: one on civil penalties and how to avoid them if you allow someone to work who is not entitled to work, for example, and another on how to avoid unlawful discrimination—for example, between British citizens and someone who is not a British citizen but is allowed to work in the UK.
The codes of practice on non-discrimination say that employers should do a right-to-work check on every applicant, British citizen or not, so as to treat everyone the same, but the checks are not the same. British and Irish citizens can produce a passport, current or expired. Would the Minister comment on whether an expired passport issued when the holder was six months old would be acceptable as a physical document for an employer? EU citizens who have applied for settled status can produce a document issued by the Home Office showing that they have applied, in which case they are entitled to work, but the employer must also have a positive verification notice from the Home Office employer checking service.
As other noble Lords have said, for foreign nationals who hold a biometric residence card, biometric residence permit or a frontier worker permit, even these documents can no longer be used as evidence on their own of their right to work without using the Home Office online system in addition. As other noble Lords have said, that will now include Ukrainian refugees. EU citizens who have settled status are even further discriminated against as they have no physical proof that they have a right to work, and the employer has to rely entirely on what is a not entirely reliable Home Office online system.
Despite the codes of practice to help employers avoid discrimination, the codes of practice on how to avoid civil or criminal penalties for employing someone not entitled to work are themselves discriminatory, in that British and Irish workers can be employed on the basis of a physical document, current or expired, but everyone else, even if they have physical proof, has to get it checked by the Home Office online system. How many employers, particularly those employing casual labour or temporary staff, will take the quick and easy route and employ a British or Irish citizen, based potentially on an expired passport, rather than a foreign worker?
As my noble friend Lord Oates said, the Windrush Lessons Learned Review emphasised the need for the Home Office to listen to the users of the system. Those who have to rely on digital-only proof of their rights have consistently said that they want physical proof. The Government have not learned the lessons of Windrush. We support this regret Motion and will support the noble Earl if he decides to divide the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is clearly an ongoing issue which the House of Commons and multiple Select Committees have raised and looked at over a number of years, as we have heard from a number of contributions. For me, it is a familiar problem. I think of the discussions and debates we had about the digitisation of the courts system, which raised many similar issues. I understand that the Government’s long-term interest is to look at a digital system and they want a digital-only system. The problems and concerns this raises are being debated today. We are also debating how the Government are responding, or not, to the concerns raised.
I echo the concern that this change is being made in a negative statutory instrument without an impact assessment—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, nodding her head. Hers was the only speech that supported the Government’s position—or she said that she wanted to support the Government—so I wrote down her questions, as I think they are worth repeating. The first was the point about the impact assessment. Another was about the lack of detail on cost saving, which was a good question. What is the actual foreseen monetary cost saving through this policy? She also raised a question about the lack of consultation with the business sector on the scheme. I would be interested to hear those answers.
I anticipate that the Government will say that the scheme is no longer new or unfamiliar, as landlords and employers have had access to the online system since 2019-20. The questions are now: how is the system working? What about those people it excludes? Is it performing well enough to be rolled out to cover more people? Why can physical proof not work in tandem with the growing online system? Indeed, that seems to be the crux of the questions put to the Minister: why can we not have a physical system working in tandem with the online system?
Ukrainian Asylum Seekers and Refugees
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I am not aware of any plans the Government have to extend that to the EU settlement scheme.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, at a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting on 11 May, a senior Home Office official said that undocumented people who travel from Ukraine to the UK could be considered for removal to Rwanda and the Minister refused to say whether Ukrainians who arrive in the UK across the channel by boat could also be sent to the central African country. If, out of desperation because of the significant delays the Minister has just told the House about—19,000 applicants are still awaiting an outcome—these people arrive in the UK without a visa, could they be sent to Rwanda?
Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I echo some of those points. I used the blue passport through an e-gate in Brussels, and it was fine. It depends on the type of technology and the gates they are using at individual places. This is just to clarify that point.
My second point is also for clarification. We were told that a lot of the backlog was due to people who could have applied online but did not—they applied physically and there was an overload—but I am not sure about that and would like some clarification. There clearly has to be a presence. While a certain amount of work can be done online, such as processing, security is a huge element of sending out a passport to somebody, whether a new applicant or somebody who has changed their name, as they will need hard-copy documents. Is my noble friend satisfied that there are enough people working in the Passport Office, not from home, who are present to facilitate all this?
The backlog is now becoming quite appalling. People are missing business trips, losing money on holidays and various other things. Often, that will not be covered by insurance whereas Covid may have been. Something may have been put in the insurance for that, but you will not get travel insurance to cover your passport not being returned to you, particularly when you have put it in for replacement in advance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, and I note that the fee amounts are the same as those prescribed by the 2018 regulations. Overall, we welcome these regulations. I start by declaring an interest in so far as my husband lives in Norway, which involves me in frequent foreign travel to the extent that I will—if I can get an appointment—have to use the Passport Office premium service when my passport comes up for renewal next year.
Secondly, in case anyone uses the Official Report as a reliable source of information, in answers on an Urgent Question from the other place on 12 May, a number of noble Lords, including the Minister, stated that EU/Schengen area countries required there to be six months unexpired on a UK passport for entry. This is not the case. There must be three months left on a UK passport from the anticipated date of exit from the EU/Schengen area, in addition to the UK passport being no more than 10 years old. I am very grateful to the BBC’s “Morning Live” for confirming this. I looked online as well, and the passport must be valid for three months from when you intend to leave the EU/Schengen area, rather than three months from when you enter. So, you should be questioned at the border about how long you are going to stay, and they will then check that you still have three months left from when you intend to leave.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
If the noble Lord will permit, is he also aware that in any Schengen area country, for example in Denmark, if a British passport is not stamped at the point of entry, you are deemed potentially to have overstayed your welcome and gone above the 90 days that were permitted, purely by the fact that you have not had your passport stamped? This is clearly stated on the Foreign Office website—I commend the Government for that—but I think that many British people are potentially falling foul of this.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I have the converse problem, in that I am running out of pages in my passport, because every time I go to Oslo, I get a stamp when I arrive and a stamp when I leave, even though, because I have applied for a residence permit—which I have yet to receive—I am not bound by the 90 days. However, we digress slightly.
Can the Minister explain what the cost of the Passport Office is overall compared with the amount of money that it generates? How much profit does the Passport Office generate, and how does the last financial year compare with previous years?
Following up on the questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Foster of Oxton, again in answers on an Urgent Question from the other place, the Minister was asked whether the 1,200 extra staff at the Passport Office employed to deal with the unprecedented surge in demand for passports following the end of Covid restrictions on travel were agency or permanent staff. Does the Minister have an answer to that question now? Conversely, how many permanent staff were furloughed in 2020 and 2021, when there were 3 million and 2 million fewer applications respectively than predicted?
We need to know whether the Passport Office is providing value for money for both applicants and the taxpayer. What staff cost savings were made in 2020 and 2021 when demand was low? How flexible is the Passport Office workforce in the face of fluctuating demand? Presumably, demand is higher in spring and summer and lower in autumn and winter. Are additional temporary staff employed at peak times or are permanent staff sitting around for six months of the year not doing very much?
How much more than the cost of producing a passport are applicants charged? If applicants pay for a premium service that the Passport Office cannot deliver within the advertised timeframe, is the premium fee refunded?
I very much welcome the introduction of a booking fee for a priority service that is not refundable if the scheduled appointment is not cancelled by the applicant 48 hours or more in advance. Slots are limited—or, at the moment, non-existent—and applicants need to be incentivised to keep their appointments. However, I question whether the whole fee should be forfeited if a prospective passport holder fails to attend an appointment for their application to be administered under the priority services without giving prior notice. I understand that the Passport Office could have made a considerable profit were the applicant to have attended the appointment but surely the cost of producing the passport should be refunded to the applicant—that is, the profit element should be retained but the cost element that is no longer incurred by the Passport Office should not. In other words, if the person does not turn up, they will not be issued with a passport, therefore the cost of producing that passport is not incurred by the Passport Office. The additional fee for a premium service should therefore be forfeited but surely the cost of producing the passport should be returned to the applicant. Can the Minister say what the fixed and marginal costs are in the case of a missed appointment for a priority service?
We acknowledge the various fee waiver and fee reduction aspects of these regulations for specified groups, as well as the discretion to retain deposits and fees dependent on individual circumstances, but, as with all Home Office services in relation to the UK border, the question remains as to why the Home Office uniquely must be self-funding. With so many more people who require a passport other than our Armed Forces, diplomats and government Ministers having to travel abroad, whether on business or to support vulnerable relatives, for example, why is almost everyone charged a much higher price for a passport than it costs to produce it? I look forward to the Minister’s response, either now or subsequently in writing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. We look forward to her response to the various questions and comments.
I very much agree with the remarks from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Foster, and, frankly, all the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. Before I start my remarks in support of them, the regulations raise a number of questions and comments for us all, not least that we are debating passport fees as set out in the schedule while, as we have heard, people are waiting months for their applications to be handled. They are often unable to access help and many are missing holidays, weddings and job opportunities because the passport system simply is not working, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, pointed out. Slowing down the fast track, as these regulations do, is almost an admission of failure. Why do Ministers not believe that the system can get back on track and meet existing targets in the longer term?
We have no concerns over the purely technical changes that set out passport fees more simply. We agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, it is fair to look at keeping the booking fee where a person books a priority appointment but fails to turn up. However, we have a few questions to raise on this and other aspects of the regulations. Can the Minister update us on the current backlog? The latest reported figure was half a million but the Home Office has not provided updated figures when asked.
Over the weekend, the Times reported that staff have warned that the systems they are being asked to use are not fit for purpose. How will the existing regulations be made fit for purpose when the existing system is said by staff not to be fit for purpose? The article reported that the existing pressures are only going to get “heavier” and that people are being given “poor, misleading advice” by the advice line provider. As I said, this SI will slow down the fast-track process by one day. Is that a proportionate response to all the problems being faced?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There were quite a few questions, so I may not be able to cover absolutely every single detail, but I will start with the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She and my noble friend Lady Foster spoke about people delaying—for obvious reasons due to Covid—their applications throughout 2020 and 2021. We did prepare extensively for elevated demand with no restrictions upon international travel, and those preparations have ensured that passport applications can be processed in higher numbers than ever before. In preparation for the demand for international travel returning, we have been advising customers since April 2021 to allow up to 10 weeks when applying for their passport, and this remains the case.
The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, asked about our anticipated forecast. It is 9.5 million applications in 2022, and we are on target to deliver those. We have employed 500 staff since last April, and there will be a further 700 this summer. They will be a mixture of agency and permanent staff, because we clearly do not need 1,200 permanent staff for ever to deal with quite a short-term issue. Moreover, 90% of passports in the 10-week timeframe are being processed within six weeks.
Turning to the blue passports, I also have a blue passport and I have not had a problem with it. I have not heard of the glossy-photo issue, but I will certainly take that away and inquire about it. It is possible, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, that the technology might have been faulty, but I shall not make any inference of what the issue was.
I was asked how many passports have been issued so far this calendar year. The answer is 3.3 million, and I understand that in March and April alone 2 million were processed, which is quite a number. I will need to write on the fixed and marginal costs regarding missed priority appointments, but clearly there is a cost for someone making an appointment and not turning up. On the question of staffing, no staff were furloughed during Covid; staff were redeployed to other priority government work in the Home Office—for example, dealing with the EU settlement scheme and asylum—and to DWP, working on universal credit.
Sopra Steria has doubled its workforce in supporting HMPO since the start of 2022, alongside opening up a number of new processing centres. Its efforts have enabled the registration of applications and supporting documents on our system and the return of supporting documents to keep pace with this unprecedented demand. We raised concerns with the provider of the passport advice line, Teleperformance, about its delivery and, in response, it is urgently working to add additional staff, with 500 due to be added by mid-June.
On the argument about three months versus six months, it varies, apparently. Not to recuse myself from the information that I gave on the Floor of the House—and I will look into it more thoroughly—I actually thought a letter might be on its way to the noble Lord by now. Apparently, it is six months for Turkey and three months for Spain, but I will give the noble Lord a proper answer on that, because I, too, looked at the GOV.UK website, but I was not entirely sure whether I was right, or the noble Lord was, at the end of it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Obviously, Turkey is not a member of the European Union and is not in Schengen. There is one rule for all EU or Schengen countries, including places such as Norway and Iceland, which is three months from departure.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am not going to disagree with the noble Lord. I would just like to give him a comprehensive picture, including on whether it is different if you are going into or coming out of the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, often goes on about the costs versus the profit that the Home Office makes. We do not make a profit. The cost of the passport goes towards our border system; it is not to make a profit. As I said, I will get back to him on costs. I can confirm that if you have paid a premium, you get your money back if your passport does not arrive in time. I will have to get back to him on children, because I do not know the answer. On what is not refunded on missing an appointment, it is not the costs of the application but the booking fee, which is £30—as I understand it from the officials behind me.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My understanding is that if you cancel within 48 hours, you give up the booking fee. If you do not cancel and do not turn up, you forfeit the whole amount: the standard application fee and the premium. In that case, the Passport Office will not be involved in the cost of producing a passport; should that not be refunded?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I did not think that was the case, but I am not going to contradict the noble Lord; I will check. I thought it was just the booking fee that you did not get back; I will double check.
I think I have answered all the questions. I have just one last point on what we did back last year. We started notifying customers by text—I think I said that on the Floor of the House a couple of weeks ago—that their passport was approaching its expiry date. We have sent some 5 million text messages to customers who hold or are about to hold an expired passport.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I have one further question as a result of what the Minister just said. I renewed my passport early because I had to change details in it, so my passport is valid for 13 years, but it is valid for only 10 years for entry to the European Union—you cannot have a passport valid for more than 10 years. Is the Passport Office sending text messages when a passport is approaching 10 years from date of issue or when it is due to expire?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is a very good question. I would have thought it would be at the 10-year point, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. If there are 13 years on the passport, would it send it after 13 years, and therefore your passport will be three years out of date? I will find out.
HM Passport Office: Backlogs
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes a good point. I will inquire as to whether we have recruited permanent staff or agency staff. If they are permanent full-time staff, they can of course be flexible to meet the needs of other parts of the Civil Service.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, at the end of 2020, when the Passport Office realised that it was 2 million short of its normal applications, why did it not encourage people to apply early, anticipating the problems that we now see?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not know the answer to the question of why we did not encourage that. Obviously, we project numbers each year, but those numbers clearly did not transpire last year and we are now facing 9.5 million applications this year.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate, covering many varied and important issues across a range of portfolios. There have been a number of memorable speeches, to which I have listened intently and of which I have taken note—but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will be relieved to hear that I will not single out any particular revolutionary from the rest of the pack.
From my perspective, there appears to be a consistent and worrying theme that runs through the Her Majesty the Queen’s gracious Speech, undermining the preservation of long-standing institutions; a central tenet of conservative philosophy has been sacrificed for short-term political expediency: the exercise and retention of political power by the Executive. The Government appear to be clamping down on dissent and challenge, whether it is through the privatisation of Channel 4, the Bill of Rights or the Public Order Bill, which copies and pastes the parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act that relate to the policing of protests and which this House, with good reason, rejected in the previous Session. Let me say to those who feel that the Government have been defeated too many times that, the more controversial and unreasonable the legislation, the higher the number of government defeats will be.
It is interesting to note that, in the Government’s background briefing on the Queen’s Speech, the section on cutting crime is subtitled “Making the Streets Safer”. By this, the Government, like the Prime Minister, mean that crime is down 13% for the year ending December 2021 compared with December 2019—but that is only if you exclude fraud and computer misuse. Just because criminals change their modus operandi, it does not mean the Government can simply exclude these types of crime from the statistics. Including these offences, crime actually went up, but where in the Queen’s Speech—indeed, where in the history of this Government —are the effective legislative measures that are needed to prevent and detect this increasingly large proportion of crime committed in the UK, which predominantly affects the old and the vulnerable who can least afford the sometimes considerable losses involved?
Yesterday, the Home Secretary claimed in the other place that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. There was some dispute in the other place about the crime statistics, so let me use the statistics that the Government placed in the background briefing to the Queen’s Speech. Homicides are up 14%; violence against the person offences are up 13%; sexual offences were up 22% last year compared with the year before. The offences that have the biggest impact on individuals are all increasing, according to the Government’s own figures. Stop and search is also up 22%, which raises the question of how effective it is compared with the damage that it causes. Last year, 80% of burglary investigations were closed without a suspect being identified. More than 90% of thefts from vehicles and bicycle thefts went unsolved. Crime is rising because, eight times out of 10, the thief gets away with it.
Making sure that victims are told quickly that their case is going nowhere is not the right response. We are not interested in empty rhetoric; we are interested in evidence-led measures that are proven to work, such as restoring a uniformed presence on our streets and restoring the support staff who help to solve crime.
Where in the Queen’s Speech are measures to tackle old people being conned into transferring their life savings into criminals’ accounts; to tackle violence, particularly male violence against women; and to address the misogyny that is everywhere, from the Houses of Parliament and the police service to the streets—misogyny that makes it unsafe for women to go jogging on their own and makes female Conservative MPs feel uncomfortable when sitting on the green Benches?
Instead, we get the return of the draconian clampdown on protests, which the Minister described as measures to prevent protestors using “guerrilla tactics”, meaning protestors attaching themselves to each other, to objects or to buildings, as the suffragettes did to secure votes for women—exactly the same measures that this House has already rejected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Lord Privy Seal said on Wednesday:
“I have no doubt that this ambitious programme will, as ever, benefit from your Lordships’ wisdom and expertise, and that your Lordships will help to ensure that the legislation can be as effective as possible.” —[Official Report, 10/5/22; col. 17.]
If only that were the case. The reality, not only on crucial aspects of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill but on other legislation last Session, was more accurately described by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who, in the same debate, remembered a conversation with a former Minister who recalled being able to take issues back to his department, where he would be listened to if he made a case for change, though not since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister. Modesty forbids me naming names, but this House has expertise in policing protests that was not listened to. Not even serving police officers have been listened to. The majority of those consulted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services say that it was not a lack of legislation that was hindering their ability to police protests effectively but a lack of police officers.
The Government’s attempts to bring police officer numbers closer to what they were a decade ago are running into trouble, with the temporary leader of the UK’s largest police force saying that they are struggling to meet recruitment targets. Even if they succeed, thousands of police community support officers, a crucial visible uniformed presence on the streets, and thousands of support staff, who enable police officers to be released from back-office roles, will not be replaced. Part of the Government’s public order proposals is to introduce serious disruption prevention orders, effectively banning people from being able to exercise their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of speech and the right to assembly.
I found it breath-taking that, in the space of a minute, the Minister talked about deporting refugees to Rwanda and government compassion for those fleeing war in Ukraine. Having successfully undermined the rights of genuine refugees fleeing war and oppression, through the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Government now seek to further undermine the rights of UK citizens to protest, and other rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act, seeking to replace the latter with a Bill of Rights.
If people have misunderstood what the Bill of Rights is about, that is the fault of government hype. The ability of individuals to challenge infringement of their rights will be made more difficult by, for example, the proposed requirement that the claimant prove significant disadvantage before a case can be heard in court. I know from personal experience that already most requests for judicial review are turned down on the papers, and many are refused at hearings in person, with very few getting through to a full hearing. The reasons for needing a Bill of Rights are spurious.
The Online Safety Bill is welcome but falls short of the Government’s aim to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. The issue of legal but harmful content has yet to be effectively addressed and the protections for children from pornography, self-harm and grooming all fall short of the standard the Government have set for themselves. To think that short cuts in data protection will reap a Brexit dividend ignores the potential impact on the data adequacy certification that the EU requires to enable the exchange of personal information, essential to both the security of the UK and its economic well-being in relation to its dealings with the European Union.
There is also the privatisation of Channel 4, a jewel in the crown of this country’s broadcasters, which supports independent producers throughout the UK and has headquarters in Leeds. It is the very model of levelling up, is in the rudest of rude financial health and does not cost the taxpayer a penny. Not only does Channel 4 commission a diverse range of award-winning content but it is fiercely independent, making it altogether different from any other broadcaster. Its privatisation will make it altogether the same as any other commercial broadcaster.
I have two sentences on banning conversion therapy. No one should be pressured into being someone they are not. Everyone should be helped to be who they really are.
Many on the Benches opposite talk about the conventions of this House. By convention, Governments listen to the wisdom and expertise in this House and respond positively. By convention, Governments do not change primary legislation by statutory instrument and, by convention, this House does not pray against them. It is not us on these Benches who are undermining these conventions; it is this Conservative Government.
This Government are not listening. They are not listening to the police, to victims of violent crime, particularly women, or to the vulnerable, whether victims of scams, harmful online content or the cost of living crisis. They are not listening to the millions who watch and enjoy Channel 4 or those who cherish the BBC. This Government are not listening to the wisdom and expertise in this House. It is a very dangerous path for the Government to go down. They need to stop and think very carefully before they go any further.
Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his response. His first question was why young children need to have their biometrics done, and he said that it could mean they have to travel a long way to do it. The reason why they have to have their biometrics done, and the reason why all this procedure takes place, is simply to make sure that they are indeed the children of the parent they are with. I have visited a VAC, having taken notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said—as I always do and as indeed I did when he was in the other place—because it is very serious. It is about as light-touch as is imaginable. For example, I saw a young child whose only form of identification to show that she was indeed the child of that mother was a letter from the doctor who delivered the child in Ukraine. That was acceptable, as are birth certificates. There is not a very high level of proof, but we just have to make sure because of our information about traffickers of young children. I know that the noble Lord would sympathise with that.
The noble Lord’s second question was, why do we not tell people when they have got the visa? There have been delays, and I am now assured that that is not the case. I am sure that the noble Lord will have me here at this very Dispatch Box if he has reports to the contrary, but he knows he could tell me that personally beforehand.
Finally, the noble Lord asked why there are so few arrivals compared to the total amount of visas. This has been perplexing me. The main reason for my recent visit to Poland was to try to find out why it has happened. There are a number of reasons, and I have commissioned some professional research on it given the number of people who have got visas compared to the number coming, so I can give the noble Lord only my opinion based on what I saw. I think that there are two reasons. One of them is that it has taken too long for people to get the visas from the time of their application—I accept that and have done my best to make sure that it is not the case, and we are now at “friction”, which means that the target of 48 hours should in the vast majority of cases be met.
The second reason—again, this is not research or a systematic poll or anything like that; it is from speaking to people involved—is that many of the refugees take our visas out in case the worst happens beyond now, but, for the moment, a lot of them believe that they can go back and live in their country, and they wish to stay as close as possible. I have had quite a few moving experiences in Syria and other places, but seeing young women speaking on mobile phones to their husbands and fathers who are fighting in live time—which I know can obviously be done with technology—I can imagine why they want to stay as near as possible. I am working on this, and I intend to make sure that the system is simplified and that we have people helping people through the procedure. If necessary, we will move on to helping them with flights and with everything in the process.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, a brief answer from the Minister would be appreciated. Initially, the Home Office said that Ukrainian refugees had to have a visa because of concerns that Russian agents would pretend to be refugees. The Home Office then changed its mind and said that Ukrainian refugees had to have a visa because of concerns, as the Minister has said, about trafficking. Yet, all other European nations have accepted Ukrainian refugees visa free because the Ukrainians put systems in place to protect vulnerable people, and so did the countries receiving them. A Home Office whistleblower told the Guardian on Saturday that the system was “designed to fail”. Is that not nearer the truth?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his comments and will try to be as brief as he wants me to be. On the reasons for the visas, I do not recognise the one about the infiltration of secret agents. I do, however, recognise the point about safeguarding, trafficking and so on. I hope that the noble Lord knows that I have done my best to ensure that this procedure is carried out as quickly as possible, but I make no excuses for our trying to identify that people who come here are who they say they are before they arrive. This is very important.
I do not accept what the whistleblower has said in the Guardian. I would like them to come and speak to me, and I would be very happy to go through it with them—that is how I run my whole ministry. I do not recognise that point.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Lord Paddick ExcerptsWednesday 27th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (27 Apr 2022)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I have the greatest respect for, I am not a lawyer, so it is with some trepidation that I enter the arena. But that is my role. As far as my common sense tells me, international agreements such as the 1951 refugee convention mean nothing if each and every signatory to the convention can reinterpret the agreement to suit its own political ends. The whole point of the refugee convention, like the European Convention on Human Rights, is to prevent rogue states passing domestic legislation that overrules the rights of refugees or the basic human rights of their own citizens in the wake of what was then the recent history of the Second World War.
On the back of their attempts to reinterpret the 1951 refugee convention, this Government appear to be about to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, judging by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. In the context of those convicted of terrorism offences challenging their segregation in prison, Dominic Raab said, at two hours and 21 minutes into the programme,
“it shows you why our Bill of Rights is so important to replace the Human Rights Act.”
So much for the Minister relying on the Human Rights Act in her arguments. I am reminded of “First they came” by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller. If we do not speak out about this Government eroding the rights of refugees, as they seek to do in this Bill, the next step will be to erode the rights of each and every one of us.
Motion A1 is a final attempt to at least make the Government honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said yesterday, if the Government were to say, “We know this Bill does not comply with the refugee convention, but we are going to enact it anyway”, they would at least be being honest. Motion A1, as I understand it, simply allows the courts to make a declaration that any parts of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are incompatible with the refugee convention and require the Government to take note of the finding—the Government having been given the opportunity to be joined as a party to the proceedings. If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, divides the House, we will support her. I understand why she may not want to divide the House, but if this were our amendment, we would. This time, it is refugees’ rights; next time, it could be our rights that are in danger if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way.
We also strongly support Motion B1 for similar reasons. It should be for the Secretary of State to prove why a genuine refugee is to be categorised as a class 1 or class 2 refugee. In any event, any Immigration Rules that are applied to whichever group a genuine refugee is categorised by the Secretary of State as falling into must not permit any practice that would be contrary to the Government’s international obligations. If this were our amendment, we would be dividing the House, but we respect the noble Lord’s decision.
On Motion C, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, having won the argument yesterday by one vote, has chosen not to pursue the right to work for refugees, despite the Government being unable to produce a shred of evidence to counter the comprehensive and compelling evidence provided yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly demonstrated that the right to work is not a so-called pull factor. The arguments made by the Minister about costs, devoid of any facts based on real-world experience unlike those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, were speculative and, never having been presented before during the passage of the Bill from my recollection, smacked of last-gasp desperation.
Liberal Democrats have long campaigned and will continue to campaign for the right of asylum seekers to pay their own way, to secure the dignity that comes from being able to support themselves and to integrate more effectively in society by being able to work. In case this is my last opportunity to speak on this Bill, may I say how appalled and disgusted I am by it? There is only one political party to blame for this shameful legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by saying that I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. Along with many noble Lords and Baronesses in this House, I have argued time and again against a Bill that most of us think is wrong and unethical. We have argued against the Government time after time on these issues, and I am going to spend a couple of minutes saying why I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
I wanted to put that on record to start with because I do not want the position that we have taken—thinking that we have come to the end of the parliamentary political process with this—to be misunderstood to mean that we do not agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Pannick and Lord Paddick, or with any other Member who supports these amendments, because I do, and we do. But there comes a point—even I accept this, after what I said yesterday—where you have to recognise that this would be the fourth time that we would have sent this back.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was kind enough to say what he did about me in the Commons, but I think that the Commons currently guillotines legislation far too quickly, which means that things are not properly considered. Frankly, that causes resentment—as happened the other day when we sent 12 amendments back and they were discussed in an hour—and people to ask why we should not send things back more often.
That is the root of the problem. But as someone who has stood for election on many of these issue and, like others, lost, fighting for this out in the community, I accept that the battle or argument now has to go beyond Parliament and out into the country. This is what elections are about. The Government get their way in the end because they won the 2019 general election and can pursue their agenda in Parliament. I can be angry, and this House can send a Bill back 10 or 12 times, but if the Conservative Government have a majority in the Commons, they will simply reject it. Of course we have a right to ask the Commons to think again, and in some cases it has done. I accept that there is a debate around how many times we should send Bills back, and whether we should send this one back once more; there is a legitimate question as to whether three times is enough or whether it should be four. But the position we have come to is that we think we are now at the end of the line. That is clearly not a view that everyone agrees with, but let it not be said that the disagreement is about the content of the Bill or the worth of the amendments; it is not. It is just about the best way to take this forward. That is the point I wanted to make.
It is worth reiterating that, as much as any other, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes to the heart of the Bill. Essentially, it was trying to say that the differential treatment of refugees would mean that vast numbers of people who come and claim asylum in this country would be criminalised. I cannot believe that that is acceptable, and that is what the amendment is getting at. We had the almost farcical situation where we were trying to imagine how someone could actually get here legitimately to claim asylum. We are an island, so what country can you come through unless you fly? But you cannot fly, because of the database checks that are carried out when you get on a plane, and so by definition you must come through a safe country to get here. According to the Bill we have before us, anybody doing that is coming illegally and should be stopped—unless they have come on one of the safe routes, but these are unavailable to large numbers of people.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. He and other noble Lords pointed out that this would have criminalised Ukrainians fleeing at the beginning of the conflict, and Afghans who had helped the British Army. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is crucial, but these arguments have to be won not only in this Chamber but out in the country. But instead, to be frank, the Government say that we have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country and they are the only ones who will fix it—ignoring the fact that they have been in power for 12 years and have not managed to sort it out in that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will appreciate that this is not a debate as to whether the amendment is right but about where we go to now. That is a position that noble Lords will have to consider for themselves, but we have considered it very carefully and come to the view that we have.
I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, but on this she is absolutely right and I totally agree with the points she has made. Other noble Lords have joined in: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made his usual excellent contribution, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, who pointed out the importance of obeying international law and respecting our international obligations.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Lord Paddick ExcerptsTuesday 26th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 26 April 2022 - (26 Apr 2022)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Motion K1 in this group but I will speak to each of the other Motions. I will say very little on the individual Motions, but I remind the House of what I said at Second Reading. If British people, as we are constantly told, are concerned about immigration, this Bill, which targets asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery, is not focused on their primary concern.
In an article in the Telegraph yesterday, Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former chief of staff, wrote about his concerns about mass immigration. Nowhere in that article does he mention asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery or the Nationality and Borders Bill. He points to the real causes of mass immigration: 240,000 work visas, up 25% compared with 2019, which was a big year for immigration; 280,000 family visas, up 49%; and 430,000 student visas, up 52%. These numbers dwarf the numbers claiming asylum.
Work permits have become unlimited; the definition of a skilled worker has been watered down; the shortage occupation list has been extended; employers no longer have to prove that they could not recruit from the resident population; and foreign students are allowed to stay on after their studies no matter what their qualification. An Australian-style points-based system, designed to increase immigration into Australia, is having the same effect here, despite the end of free movement. Yet this Government, and this Bill, address none of these issues but instead focus on the small minority fleeing war, persecution and modern slavery, who desperately need sanctuary.
On Motions A and A1, we believe that the safeguards the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has secured in relation to deprivation of British citizenship without notice will ensure that further abuse of the system is prevented. While we have sympathy with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we are pleased that she is not going to divide the House on this occasion.
On Motions K and K1, I understand the Government’s determination to prosecute people smugglers but the unintended consequences of removing the “for gain” element of the offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker into the United Kingdom are to subject individuals, most importantly those seeking to rescue migrants drowning in the channel, to prosecution.
The first amendment approved by this House to reinstate “for gain” was a Labour amendment. The second, a Liberal Democrat amendment, provided that those with a reasonable excuse for facilitating entry would not commit an offence. Both were rejected by the other place. This third attempt would mean that individuals engaged in genuine humanitarian activity, including the preservation of life, would not commit an offence.
This is about removing doubt from the minds of those who come across drowning migrants in the channel that they may be prosecuted if they effect an immediate rescue. The Bill, as drafted, says that they commit a criminal offence. The only current defence is that, once charged, they may present a defence in court—once they have been arrested and prosecuted. Whatever the Government might say, that could cause people to hesitate when decisive, life-saving action is needed. We believe that lives depend on Motion K1 being agreed by this House, and I urge noble Lords around the House to support it.
We support Motion L1, and do not believe that modern slavery should be part of this Bill at all. These victims are extremely vulnerable and should be supported, apart from in very exceptional circumstances. The current “public order” concern is far too broad. We believe that Motion L1 provides a solution to that issue, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will explain.
On Motion M, it is with great regret that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over many years, to protect and properly support victims of modern slavery, have come to a point where his own party, the Conservative Party, refuse to support him in his attempts to make appropriate provision for such victims.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by saying a couple of words about a couple of the Motions and will then concentrate my remarks on Motion L1, in my name, on modern slavery.
On Motion A1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and the work she and many others in this House have done on this particular issue. As she knows, we originally wanted the whole clause to be removed, but we recognise that the Government have changed the clause significantly by accepting the safeguards tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Minister is to be congratulated on moving as far as she did on that issue. On that basis, and that of other safeguards, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has mentioned, there is nothing further we can do with respect to this clause. As I said, we all note the work which the Minister has done. Certainly, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would not have been as well accepted as it was by the Government without the work she has done.
On Motion K1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we agree entirely with the problems which the removal of the words “for gain” creates. He knows that I have supported him all the way through the Bill. But we are left with difficult decisions and, although the Government have removed rescue efforts co-ordinated by the coastguard from the scope of the offence, a captain who takes a split-second decision to rescue lives at sea will officially commit an offence. This is addressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, only by the fact that they will have an exceptionally strong defence for doing so. I note that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that she does not believe that someone would be prosecuted in those circumstances, and it would helpful if she reiterated that again from the Dispatch Box as a further safeguard and reassurance to people who may be put in that position. We would have liked to see this remaining problem fixed but, as I said, as the Government have already significantly amended this clause, we are doubtful that there is anything more to be achieved in this respect and there are other issues we wish to focus on—one of which I will turn to now.
I first thank the Minister, who tried to address many of the issues which have been raised around Clause 62. I remind noble Lords that, as my amendment points to, this clause deals with disqualifying potential victims of modern slavery from protection. As the Minister confirmed, this includes children. We are genuinely trying to be helpful on this issue. As the Minister outlined, the Government clearly recognise the real problem here. The clause, as originally drafted, was too broad, and it remains too broad. It will actually capture victims who have a criminal record only as a consequence of their slavery—because they have been exploited and forced into crime by their traffickers. This legislation, even as amended, and even with the reassurances from the Minister, will still capture victims of modern slavery and disqualify them from protection. This is the reality of the legislation before us: it will prevent victims entering the NRM; it will tighten traffickers’ hold on their victims; and it will stop us being able to find, stop and prosecute the vile people traffickers.
The Government have been generous with their time; they have met me and trafficking organisations on numerous occasions. But the problem remains in the way that this clause is drafted. The amendment that I have put before the House seeks to give the Government time to sort out the issue, which they recognise as a problem, of defining “public order”. As it is in the Bill at the moment, victims of trafficking who commit minor offences are potentially disqualified from protection. That cannot be what the Government, this House or anyone would wish, but it is the consequence of the Bill—it is the consequence of the legislation as it is drafted. Whatever the warm words and intentions of the Minister—who would not want that to happen and says that it will be all right on a case-by-case basis—you cannot legislate on the basis that it will be all right on the night. That is not the right way of doing it. The legislation creates the problem. We also tried to address concerns around terrorism, and that is why we added TPIMs to the amendment.
I want to refer to the Government’s latest statistics to conclude my remarks on modern slavery. According to the Government’s own document, published a couple of weeks ago, 43% of those who claimed asylum last year because of exploitation were children. This means that 43% will potentially be impacted—I am not saying that they will be—by this clause as it is currently drafted. That is the reality of what is before your Lordships this afternoon and why I am so insistent on my amendment, in Motion L1.
The Minister referred to the number of adults who are not officially referred—if you are an adult, you have to give consent—and where instead the first responders act on their duty to notify. In the past year, this number has increased by 47%—47% of adults are refusing to consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism. The Minister will say that it is up to them whether or not they consent, but let me say why I think they do not consent. I think that an increasing number of victims or potential victims of trafficking do not consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism because they are scared. They do not see authority in the way that we do. They do not see police officers in the way that we do. They do not see immigration officials in the way that we do. They do not see civil servants in the way that we do. They are frightened. They are victims. They may have been forced into criminality and, as such, they do not want to have it imposed on them that they must be referred to an official system. That there has been a 47% increase in victims or potential victims refusing to consent to being referred to the system should ring alarm bells with everyone.
My amendment says that, because of an increased emphasis on things such as public order, there is a failure to recognise the reality for victims of slavery and their lives. Many noble Lords here, including me, have met victim after victim and potential victim after potential victim—people who are terrified, mortified and scarred for ever by their experience. Yet the way this Bill is drafted, it will penalise them for that experience and any forced criminality. This is not the Government’s intention—I accept that—but it is the reality of the legislation before them. I ask your Lordships this: why, either in this place or the other place, would you pass a piece of legislation that flies directly in the face of the policy objectives that you have? It is nonsense. The Government do not want to exclude potential victims of modern slavery from referring themselves or being referred, but that will be the consequence of this legislation if it is unamended.
We will divide the House on this. We want the Commons once again to think whether they really want to pass legislation that will potentially lead to victims of modern slavery not coming forward or having the help and support they deserve. I do not believe they do. That is why we should support Motion L1 in my name.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, contrary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just said, I accept that the Attorney-General is a senior Law Officer. But she is also a member of the Government and, as far as I am concerned, in relation to Motions B and B1, it is vital that compliance of domestic legislation with the UK’s international obligations—in this case, the 1951 refugee convention—is decided by the courts. If a precedent is set that a UK Government can reinterpret its international obligations by passing domestic legislation, where does it end? This Bill would remove refugees’ fundamental human rights, as set out in an international convention to which the UK is a signatory, unless we support Motion B1.
Motion C1 applies the same principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the UK courts have held time after time that an asylum seeker’s temporary stop in another country on their way to the UK does not invalidate their claim for asylum in the UK, nor does a delay in presenting themselves to the authorities if they have good cause.
Motion C1 also, importantly, restates the provision in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that the Immigration Rules must not result in a breach of the refugee convention. It also states the importance of the best interests of the child and the right to family unity, and we support it.
On Motions D and D1, we have long campaigned for the right of asylum seekers to work, and we continue to do so. We do not believe that any so-called pull factor, as the Government claim the right to work to be, is as strong or as impactful as the push factors that force asylum seekers to seek sanctuary in another country—or is even a consideration compared to them. This is even more obviously the case if the right to work is the same or less generous than in other countries, as this amendment proposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, we wholeheartedly support it.
The issues in Motion E are arguably covered by Motion C1.
Motions F, F1 and F2 have been brought into stark relief by the Government’s announcement of the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Rwanda. An article in the Times yesterday, for which a considerable number of asylum seekers in northern France were spoken to, proves what the Home Office’s own civil servants have told the Home Secretary: that outsourcing, or offshoring, and the threat of permanent removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will not deter channel crossings. That is what asylum seekers in northern France are saying.
The outrage of this House at these proposals was amply demonstrated yesterday, albeit unfairly directed at the Minister personally, in response to the Private Notice Question on the Rwanda deal. The Minister claimed that removal to places such as Rwanda had been legally possible for years. Can the Minister clarify whether offshoring is legally possible only if the Home Secretary certifies that a claim is without merit and that, even then, the claim can continue to be pursued from overseas? Is it right that there is no provision for a successful claimant of refugee status to be permanently excluded from the UK under current legislation?
The Minister talked about the cost of the asylum system being approximately £1.5 billion a year. Surely that is due mainly to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Home Office, which has led to record levels of outstanding claims, despite the fact that the number of asylum claims is less than half of what it was a decade or so ago.
The Minister also said that noble Lords should read the memorandum of understanding. Some of us have. There is a section in it requiring Rwanda to provide appropriate support to those removed by the UK who are victims of modern slavery. Can the Minister confirm that the Government accept that victims of modern slavery will also be removed to Rwanda? Otherwise, why is that section contained in the MoU?
We will support anything that prevents this immoral and senseless government proposal being put into practice. If either the right reverend Prelate or the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, divide the House, we will support them.
On Motion G, as the Government have accepted in relation to Ukraine, family reunion is an important and effective means of providing sanctuary to asylum seekers, and we continue to support family reunion whenever and wherever we can.
On Motions H and H1, the Ukrainian refugee crisis has demonstrated how ill prepared the UK is and how uncaring the UK Government are in insisting on visas for dealing with the resettlement of refugees, compared with the generosity of the British people in offering to open up their homes. Setting a target and then gearing up to meet it is a sensible and pragmatic way of dealing with the issue, informed by local authorities.
“(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person whose action is taken for humanitarian reasons including the preservation of life.”””