Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 142
142
Acknowledged
At Committee stage in the Commons, the Government added clause 43.
Conclusion
At Committee stage in the Commons, the Government added clause 43. This introduces an extension of the existing conditions that may be applied to any grant of limited leave to enter or remain in the UK under section 3(1) (c) of the Immigration Act 1971. This covers persons not liable to detention. The new conditions include electronic monitoring, requirements to be at certain places at certain times, requirements to remain in certain places, prohibitions on being in certain areas, and any “such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”184 The Government’s rationale was explained by the Minister in Public Bill Committee proceedings: Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, they are granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subjected to while on immigration bail. The new clause will end that disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the particular migrant who poses a threat. It also makes crystal clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail.185
Government Response Summary
The government reiterates its intention to use clause 43 conditions, such as electronic monitoring and curfews, to manage foreign nationals who pose a threat and cannot be immediately removed, ensuring decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with proportionality analysis.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
The Home Office will always seek to deport or remove those foreign nationals who pose a threat to the UK or whose behaviour is such that they do not qualify for international protection. Where the UK’s obligations under the ECHR prevent that, consideration will be made on whether to impose these conditions. The intention would remain to remove the person from the UK as soon as possible given the threat they have been assessed to pose to the UK. These measures are considered necessary to safely manage some individuals in the community in between reviews determining whether they can be removed or not. The European Court of Human Rights has said that member states have an undeniable right to control a migrant’s residence in their country.2 The Government recognises that these conditions may be seen as invasive, which is somewhat inherent in the nature of their purpose: to control and mitigate risks posed by an individual, including in relation to their location and activities. The conditions are to be used only in the circumstances described above; namely, where the individual is liable to removal from the UK, but where that is not possible (at the time), possibly due to a real risk of removal infringing their rights under the ECHR. Decisions to impose these conditions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and subject to a proportionality analysis to ensure any measures imposed are compatible with a migrant’s rights under the ECHR. In the first instance, electronic monitoring would be considered as a means to mitigating the threat posed by the individual. Curfews, inclusion zones and exclusion zones will only be imposed in cases where electronic monitoring is not sufficient to mitigate the threat posed by the person. Where a person considers that the imposition of such conditions on them is disproportionate, they are permitted to make those representations to the Home Office and, thereafter, judicial review provides appropriate scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s use of these powers.