Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 17
17
Rejected
The requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions, and...
Recommendation
The requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions, and curfews, should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill and adequately circumscribed. In order to reflect the Government’s intentions as stated by the Minister, the exercise of these powers should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. Given the potential severity of interferences with the rights of individuals with any form of limited leave to remain, the exercise of these powers should be subject to judicial scrutiny. (See Amendment 17, Annex). (Recommendation, Paragraph 149) Treating certain crimes as “particularly serious”
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the need to set out requirements and limitations for imposing conditions on the face of the Bill, stating these measures are necessary for managing individuals posing a threat and are applied on a case-by-case basis with proportionality analysis. They also affirm that judicial review already provides appropriate scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s use of these powers.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
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.