My Lords, Amendment 59 is a probing amendment to try to get some of the detail of what is really involved in how a temporary exclusion order will operate. It is around the permit to return. Clause 4(8) states that:
“It is for the Secretary of State to decide the terms of a permit to return (but this is subject to section 5(3))”.
That is the subsection which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just sought to delete in an amendment. However, all Clause 5(3) does is state that the return must be made,
“within a reasonable period after the application is made”.
There is no opportunity for Parliament to look at the detail of this procedure or indeed to consult, so the amendment we propose is that the procedure should be published and that there should be some consultation on it. By tabling the amendment, we hope to get a response from the Minister that will help us to understand the workability of these measures—a term used quite a lot in the Immigration Act. Are these measures going to be workable in practice? If they are workable, will they have the effect that is intended?
When the Secretary of State initially rejected judicial oversight of temporary exclusion orders in the other place, she said that they were less restrictive than TPIMs. I think that temporary exclusion orders are a significant power for a Home Secretary to take. In itself, a significant power is not a reason for opposing it, but it does make the case for the Government to provide absolute clarity on what is involved and how it is to work in practice. I hope that that is what we are going to do today. I shall be absolutely clear: we see the value of and we support managed return. We have made that clear throughout the proceedings. But there are a number of issues around the support provided for managed return. For those who return disillusioned, there is an opportunity to engage in the Prevent or Channel programmes, which will be of enormous benefit and support to them and to their families. There is also the opportunity to ensure that they are subject to TPIMs, if appropriate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made the point that it is far preferable to take preventive action early on rather than having to take more serious action at a later stage. However, if these orders and that type of preventive action are to work, they will have to be effective in their process and in their practical application. They need to be both effective and efficient.
Many questions arise when reading the Bill, the Explanatory Notes and the Government’s factsheet, which is perhaps more helpful in identifying questions to be asked than in giving answers. I give one example of why it is so important that we make sure that we have got this right. In the past few weeks we have had cases—noble Lords will be aware of them—of nurses who have been treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone returning to the UK. We were all told that there was a managed process in place to ensure that if they had Ebola—if they might be infected and ill—that would be identified at the airport and certain procedures would be put in place before they could return home. As we have seen from press reports, that kind of managed return was not as successful as the Government had indicated.
9 pm
Before I came in I checked on a particular case I was thinking of that was in the press as the House was returning. Pauline Cafferkey was diagnosed with Ebola. When she returned to Heathrow with a high temperature she told those doing the checks on people returning
that she had a high temperature—she felt unwell—and she was told to return home by public transport but then not to use it for the next couple of weeks. That is not a very efficient managed return. The volunteers described the checks as shambolic.
As a result, the Government have responded well. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, is reviewing the processes and practices. However, that illustrates why we expect the Government in this matter—a matter of national security, as important as the health of the nation—to have the answers that indicate that the process of managed return under a temporary exclusion order will be effective and efficient and will work. It is a matter of clarity on process and on resources.
We all understand that there will be a number of scenarios here, and we cannot expect the Government to tell us the details and differences of every case. However, we would appreciate details about some specific areas. I apologise: I have a large number of questions. I do not think they are unusual questions—I suspect that they are the kind of questions the Minister himself will have been asking officials. They would be helpful in understanding this.
Let us take an example. Mr A arrives at the airport with a UK passport and a ticket for his return to the UK. At that point he will be informed—or reminded, if he is already aware—that there is a temporary exclusion order on him, and that he is unable to return to the UK because of the TEO. At that point will he be detained by the country he is in? If he is, on what charge will that be, and under what provisions? For how long could he be detained? Who would pay that country to detain him if he is to be detained? Or would he not be detained, and able to leave the airport and make his own arrangements? Who will inform this individual, and how, that he needs to apply for a permit to return home? I expect that to be part of the TEO, but we appreciate that some people may not see that order themselves—it may go to their previous address and may not reach them—although they remain subject to it.
Would there be instructions on how they could apply for such a permit? Will any advice and assistance be given them to do so? The complications, the procedure and the bureaucracy of applying could be quite difficult for some people. I know highly intelligent people who, when given a form with lots of bits to fill in, go to pieces. It can be quite daunting. The Minister made it clear earlier that the whole purpose is to ensure that we get that managed return: we want people to complete these permits to return home. So what advice and help will they be given to do so?
Once they have completed the permit, how long will they have to wait for the application to be considered? Not every case will be the same but there must be some indication of what the normal process will be. As the factsheet helpfully says, in some cases, but not every case, there will be an out-of-country interview. However, the individual will have to agree to be interviewed on their return to the UK. In some cases the UK police will have to go out to the country from which they are to escort them back to the UK. What is the expected timescale of that process? How long do we expect it to
take from when they issue the permit to when they are interviewed or police officers go out? That has a bearing on how long they are in the country from which they are seeking to return home, and how that process is managed.
What will happen in the case of an individual summonsed to appear in a British court or whose extradition, for example, is sought? We know that if they are being deported by the country they are in, the Home Secretary will issue a permit—I assume she will issue a permit immediately if someone is being deported. Will a permit still be issued for somebody who is required to appear before a court or who is facing extradition charges to return to the UK, or would that be prevented by the TEO? If the country decides to deport, it is clear-cut, but it is not clear-cut in cases of extradition—or maybe it is, but just not in the Bill. Clearly, the kind of managed return that we are seeking requires the co-operation of other countries.
The noble Lord has told me in the very helpful meetings that we have had with him and his officials—this is also in the documentation—that they have had discussions with, I think, France and Turkey. Those will not be the only countries that people will be retuning from, but it is helpful to know that. The Home Secretary said in the other place that these discussions—I do not know if they have been any wider than France and Turkey, although I would hope that they have been—have been very productive. Does that mean that no concerns have been raised, or have concerns been raised but been dealt with? In saying that they have been productive, does that mean a process is in place, procedures have been set up, no concerns have been raised and everyone is happy—or are there still further discussions and negotiations to be had before this part of the Bill is effective?
What role will British consular authorities have? Will they assist in permit applications for those subject to a TEO? If somebody is imprisoned in another country, will the consular authorities be informed and will they have access to that individual? They are still a British citizen—the noble Lord has made it clear that they are temporarily excluded from the UK until certain conditions are met—so I hope that there would still be consular access and consular support, but it would be good for that to be clarified. If they are not detained by the country that they are in, what arrangements would be made for their accommodation? Where are they expected to stay? The worry is that they will just melt away and disappear, and the last thing we want with people who are disillusioned and who want to return home is them going straight back into the hands of ISIS or whoever else they have been associating with. A terrorist or somebody who could be a danger to the public is equally a danger in any other country as they are in the UK. As I said to the noble Lord, the process of managing their return, subject to conditions, is extremely important. If they melt away at the airport and no arrangements are made, how do we know where they are, what they are doing and who they are associating with?
Have the Government given any consideration to whether other countries are considering taking similar measures, or had any discussions with other countries
about them doing so? What are the implications if they did? That might seem to create a lack of international co-operation. I hope that those discussions have been had.
I am assuming that when someone returns to the UK, the flight will paid for by the Government, given that they lost their previous flight and the Government are managing their return. It would be helpful if that could be confirmed. I assume that not everybody who returns will be accompanied on the flight by British police officers. If they return on their own, will they be met at the airport? Given that they have agreed to be interviewed, when does the Minister expect that interview to take place? Will it take place immediately on their return or would it be by appointment? When we discuss other parts of the Bill next week, we will be discussing how TPIMs are to be applied. However, the whole permit process is predicated on the interviews taking place swiftly, I hope, and we want assurances that no permit or return would ever be delayed due to delays in arranging interviews.
Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse to issue a permit and, if so, what are they? Has any consideration been given to the possibility of the individual trying to enter the UK illegally—for example, when they have been turned back from the airport? If they have a ticket to return but are told to go away, they may well try to obtain a false identity and enter the country illegally. There are obvious implications, as I have mentioned, if someone melts away at the airport in another country. Has any consideration been given to managing that kind of process?
I appreciate that there are a large number of questions but, as I said at the beginning, I am sure they are the kind of questions that Ministers are asking officials when working out the practicality or workability of this. I can envisage cases where this will work extremely smoothly: somebody will turn up at the airport, be interviewed by consular officials, come home on a flight, whether accompanied or not, and will agree to be interviewed, and it will progress from there. Equally, there will be cases in which things will be a lot more complex and difficult. The success or failure of these measures will be determined not by straightforward and easy cases, but by those that are the most difficult to manage.
That is why I have proposed this amendment. It is probing but serious none the less. We want such orders to be effective and efficient, and do the job that they are supposed to do. If they are to be in place, the last thing that we want is the managed return not being properly managed and our not being able to ensure that we are engaging with people who may be involved in terrorism and using the TPIMs process, with the TEOs falling in disrepute.
I am winding up in the hope that the noble Lord has received inspiration from various sources. If he can answer my question, I would be grateful.