| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, Schedule 7
Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What consultations were held between the Home Office, Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport before Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002 was laid before Parliament on 3 July; and[HL5268]
What consultations were held between them and representatives of the ports and airlines industries regarding the proposed Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002 between Monday 15 April and Monday 1 July; and[HL5269]
Why no regulatory impact assessment was produced in connection with Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002; laid before Parliament on 3 July.[HL5284]
Lord Filkin: Copies of the consultation letter of 1 March were sent to the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI). Officials from the DTLR attended a number of the meetings which the Home Office arranged with representatives of the enforcement agencies and the air and maritime carriers.
Between 15 April and 1 July 2002 Home Office officials met representatives of the air and maritime industries on 19 April (maritime freight carriers), 14 May (air freight carriers), 28 May (air freight forwarders), 17 June (maritime freight forwarders) and 25 June (maritime containers). In addition officials made a number of visits to ports and individual companies on 15 May (Dover East); 22 May (FedEx); 30 May (Holyhead); 7 June (DHL); 13 June (British International Freight Association) and 26 June (Excel).
On 11 July, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, my honourable friend the Minister of State (Ms Hughes) and I met representatives of the air and maritime carriers.
A regulatory impact assessment was produced and sent to the House on 12 July 2002. The document will be amended to reflect the outcome of the ongoing consultation on the implementation of the legislation.
Refugees: Entry through the Republic of Ireland
Lord Kilclooney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What checks are in place to monitor the movement of refugees or asylum seekers from the European Union via the Republic of Ireland across the land frontier into the United Kingdom.[HL5270]
Lord Filkin: The United Kingdom Immigration Service does not operate a border control on the land frontier between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as this falls within the arrangements
set out for the common travel area. The objective of the common travel area is that all the territories should be treated as a single unit for the purpose of travel within the area. A person's arrival in the United Kingdom from within the common travel area is not, therefore, subject to control except under very specific circumstances as outlined in the Immigration Act 1971 and the Control of Entry through the Republic of Ireland Order 1972 which defines those persons who may not enter the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland without leave from an immigration officer.People entering Ireland from outside the common travel area, including European Union states other than the United Kingdom, would arrive by sea or air into ports of entry controlled by the Irish authorities. We are confident that the Irish authorities control their borders effectively in accordance with their legislation and the United Kingdom Immigration Service liaises closely with its Irish counterparts on matters of mutual operational interest.
Any asylum seeker who has sought asylum in another member state of the European Union who subsequently travels to the United Kingdom is liable for return to that country under the terms of the Dublin Convention. This includes people who have sought asylum in the Republic of Ireland.
British Passports
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether British citizens are entitled to receive and retain British passports except in the following cases:
(a) where British citizenship has been acquired by fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant; or
(b) voluntary service in a foreign military force; or
(c) conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British Overseas Territory; or
(d) where they have no claim to British nationality; or
(e) in relation to minors whose journey is known to be contrary to a court order; or
(f) where a warrant for the arrest has been issued in the United Kingdom for the individual concerned; or
(g) the issuing of a passport would be contrary to the public interest; and, if not, what are the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Government to exercise their powers to refuse to provide or withdraw a passport.[HL5272]
Lord Filkin: British passports are issued to British nationals in the United Kingdom at the discretion of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and,
at overseas posts, at the discretion of my friend the Foreign Secretary, both exercising the Royal Prerogative. The essential requirements are that the intended holder has British nationality and is the person described by the personal details to be entered in the passport. Passports are therefore not issued to persons who are not British nationals and/or whose identity cannot be authenticated.
Passport facilities are refused or can be withdrawn in certain other well defined categories, which have been reported to Parliament from time to time. These are:
The possibility of introducing a statutory right to passports has been debated in Parliament in the past but successive governments have taken the view that the current system has worked well and change is not required.
Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Filkin: The asylum system is working increasingly quickly, through reforms and increased resources. Measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will continue this process. This means that the employment concession, whereby asylum seekers could apply for permission to work if their application remained outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The vast majority—around 80 per cent—of asylum seekers receive a decision within six months, and work is continuing to improve that further. An increasingly small number of people, therefore, are entitled to apply for the concession. It is
We are determined to make it clear that there is a distinct separation between asylum processes and labour migration channels. It is essential that we have a robust asylum process that works effectively and swiftly in the interests of refugees and also is not open to abuse by those who would seek to come here to work. But that does not mean we are ''Fortress Britain''. The Government are putting in place an effective managed migration programme and continue to create a number of work routes to allow more people to come and work here legally in ways which boost our economy. For example, the Government have overhauled the work permits system and the number of work permits issued has doubled over the past two years—in 2001 we issued work permits to nearly 140,000 people. Other entry routes for people who want to work in the United Kingdom include the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, the Working Holidaymakers Scheme (under which nearly 40,000 Commonwealth young people a year come to the United Kingdom for a working holiday) and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (which brings in nearly 20,000 seasonal workers a year). In addition, the Government are currently consulting on schemes to bring in more temporary workers in industries with recruitment difficulties.
Those who are granted refugee status can work immediately, and we welcome the enormous contribution that the skills and knowledge of refugees can make to our society and to our economy. However, our asylum system exists to help those fleeing persecution—those who want to come here to work must do so through the various economic routes available rather than abuse the asylum system.
We have therefore decided, with immediate effect, that the concession should be abolished. Asylum seekers who already have permission to work will retain that right until such time as a final decision is made on their claim. Asylum seekers who, prior to this announcement, had sought permission to work but have not had a response will have their requests considered in line with our previous policy. We will retain a discretion to grant permission to work for asylum seekers in exceptional cases.
It is absolutely vital, of course, that all asylum seekers use their time constructively while their case is considered. Therefore, we have also decided to review our current rules governing the voluntary work which asylum seekers can undertake in order to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to participation.
To demonstrate our ongoing commitment to purposeful activity for asylum seekers, we have also awarded over £900,000 to 135 projects across the United Kingdom for summer programmes to give them the opportunity to get involved in voluntary activities in the community or partake in sports orientated and educational events.
(i) a minor whose journey is know to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority in whose favour a residence order has been made or awarded custody or care and control, or to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by Section 42 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, or Section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976, as amended by the Children Act 1989.
(ii) a person for whose arrest a warrant has been issued in the United Kingdom or who is wanted by the police on suspicion of a serious crime;
(iii) in very rare cases, a person whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to public interest;
(iv) a person repatriated at public expense, until the debt has been repaid.
The refusal or withdrawal of passport facilities in these circumstances is rare and cases are considered on their individual merits. On the basis of the limited case law it is clear that such action is open to scrutiny by the courts.
What plans they have to amend the employment concession for asylum seekers.[HL5544]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page