Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Committee (3rd Day)

Clause 28: Use and disclosure of information supplied under section 27

Amendment 95

95: Clause 28, page 21, line 14, leave out from “them” to end of line 15 and insert “only for those purposes” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is to probe under what further circumstances a person listed under section 27(3)(a) to (f) could use the information supplied to them by HMRC.

My Lords, Amendment 95 is about the use of information supplied by HMRC. I acknowledge that many—possibly most—people believe that if information is given to a government official in one part of government, the Government as a whole have it. That is not the case, and we do need to take care with protecting data. Clause 28(1) allows for the use of any of an organisation’s functions, and the amendment would limit it to the functions for which the information is supplied, it being for the purpose of any other functions of the persons in in subsection (3).

I have explained that extraordinarily badly. This comes of thinking that you can write brief notes instead of a complete speech, which I try and avoid for Committee. I refer noble Lords to the authority of the Bill. Basically, I want to limit the use of information provided under the Bill and to ask the Minister how this will work, how it will be policed and what sanctions, what remedies, there are if information is misused.

Amendment 190—in his absence, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson—raises again the issue of a firewall to protect vulnerable people. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is going to hear a repetition of points that I made on the Employment Rights Bill, because they are relevant here too. The objective is to protect workers who are in particular need of protection because of the abuse, the exploitation, they are experiencing. The amendment would restrict the use of information disclosed for enforcement purposes—enforcement against abuse or exploitation—regarding a subject of abuse who is seeking support, and of information regarding a witness to that exploitation. I shall return to witnesses in a moment.

I became aware during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 of the conditions to which some overseas domestic workers were subject. Slavery was the right term for them, and a change in the rules was made. It was minor and, frankly, quite inadequate. Our law did not and does not protect migrant workers—not just domestic workers but those in agriculture, care, health and so on—as it should. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse, not just because of the consequences if their existence comes to the attention of immigration authorities, but because of their fear of the consequences. People who do not know their way around the system, who are in fear of any authority figure, are very open to unscrupulous employers who can make threats—the threats may have no foundation at all—that the person may be detained or deported, or that the person’s children will be taken away, so they cannot take the risk of reporting abuse and exploitation. I am told by the sector that this fear is not ill-founded. There is evidence that data is often shared between labour market enforcement agencies, the police and Immigration Enforcement.

My Lords, I will be brief, because I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, particularly about the position of domestic migrant workers. This is something we will come back to at later stages of the Bill, but as the noble Baroness has raised it now, I just put on record how much I agree with her. The noble Lord, Lord German, and I recently met with Kalayaan, which does so much extraordinary, wonderful work in this field. We were reviewing with it how things have changed—and what else needs to be changed—in the years that have passed since 2015. I have with me a publication it issued called 12 Years of Modern Slavery, the Smoke Screen Used to Deflect State Accountability for Migrant Domestic Workers.

I know that the Minister agrees with Kalayaan’s 2015 findings, because there is a photograph of the Minister and me, both of us looking considerably younger, alongside our redoubtable friend, now retired from this place, Lord Hylton. We were celebrating the passage of the 2015 legislation but recognising that more still needed to be done. I will not quote at length from the report. If the Minister has not seen it, I will be more than happy to share my copy with him, so that he can study the photographs and see the effects of too much engagement with Bills such as this.

The report says:

“Government data tells us that from 2005 to 2022, the number of visas issued to migrant domestic workers has remained consistent at around 20,000 per year”,

so this does affect a significant number of people doing significant work. Kalayaan urged the Government to take immediate steps to amend the Immigration Rules and reinstate the rights provided for under the pre-2012 visa regime. Among those is the right to renew a domestic worker visa annually, subject to ongoing employment. That is a reasonable demand. I hope that at some stage during the proceedings on the Bill, the Minister will see whether there is a way to address that issue. So I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said.

My Lords, I will speak briefly on a couple of the amendments in this group.

I was listening very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said on the information-sharing provisions in Clauses 27 and 28, which her amendment refers to. It would be helpful, certainly for me, if the Minister when he responds could be clear about the scope of those two clauses. My reading of Clauses 27 and 28 is that the HMRC data that is allowed to be shared under those provisions is that gained purely through its customs functions, not through its other activities. I am unclear about how that would help—or not—in the very important issues that the noble Baroness raised about the protection of workers and, rightly, the need to crack down on those who abuse people’s immigration status and employ them when they have no right to work in this country.

I very much support strengthening the law in this area and sharing information to support that, but I am unclear on the customs function. The customs data helps strengthen the case about combating organised criminal groups and their transporting of funds and the supplies they use to do this trafficking. That seems to be the purpose of the clause, so it would be helpful if the Minister could flesh that out.

I strongly support my noble friend’s Amendment 188. Whether we support them or not, we should go back to the purposes of the GDPR and the human rights legislation, particularly the GDPR data. The intention of that legislation is absolutely right—that we protect the information of people who are legitimately in the country. However, we should not use that legislation to protect those who are here illegally or who are criminals trafficking in human beings and abusing our laws. It would be much more helpful if that legislation was not used to protect them. Therefore, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment. I know he will set it out in more detail; I just wanted to add my support and to raise the question that arose from the noble Baroness’s contribution.

My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to my Amendment 188. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Harper. This amendment inserts a new clause to exclude illegal migrants and foreign criminals from GDPR provisions in relation to personal data processing by authorities carrying out immigration enforcement functions.

We need to be clear about the principles at stake here: security, accuracy and the rule of law. If we are serious about defending the integrity of our borders and our domestic security, we must ensure that those on the front line, our law enforcement agencies, have the full set of legal tools they need to do their jobs effectively. That is a thread that has run through many of our remarks from these Benches in Committee, for the important reason that we expect these organisations to protect us and to uphold the rule of law. We must do all we can to help them do that.

Amendment 188 is designed to enable targeted, lawful and proportionate access to information, so that decisions about an individual’s status can be made based on facts, not guesswork. That is in the interests of everyone: the public, the authorities and, indeed, the individuals concerned. Indeed, far from being a threat to their rights, this amendment would strengthen our ability to protect the most vulnerable. It is only by accessing the necessary data, whether digital records, communications or location information, that we can determine whether someone is, for instance, a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead. If we shackle our agencies with red tape, we risk missing that, and in so doing we deny people the very protections the system was designed to provide.

Of course, UK GDPR plays a vital role in safeguarding the data and privacy of law-abiding individuals, but we must also be honest. Those who break the law by entering this country illegally or who are convicted foreign criminals cannot expect the full suite of privacy rights to remain intact when they come under investigation—a point made very eloquently just now by my noble friend Lord Harper. Rights are not absolute, and privacy must give way where it conflicts with the greater public interest, the prevention of crime, the protection of our borders and the administration of justice, and this amendment reflects that principle. It would ensure that exemptions apply only in the context of specific immigration and border security functions, empowering our authorities as well as protecting our borders. In conclusion, it would enhance, not diminish, the fairness and credibility of our immigration system and I urge the Committee to support it.

Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is, as the explanatory statement sets out, a probing amendment which asks when information provided under this clause should be used by the parties set out in the preceding clause, and I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s reasoning for and vision of how these processes should work and in what circumstances. Our reading of these clauses is that they are necessary, particularly if we are to tackle this problem alongside partners who we simply must have on board as part of a unified approach.

The third parties set out in Clause 27 include, among others,

“an immigration officer … a designated customs official … the Director of Border Revenue … the Border Security Commander … the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.

Plainly, we need to have an arrangement in which information can be shared between these parties, and that is vital to tackling the issue of illegal immigration. It is particularly important that we have a system which pulls together agencies and organisations not only in this country but in other relevant third countries. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to set out how the system will work and how information will be shared both quickly and effectively.