Liberal Democrats perspective on e-Visas

 I've had a response from Layla Moran's office to my email about the government planning to use e-Visas for immigration raids.

"Dear Ray,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns about e-Visas.

As Co-President of The European Movement, Layla is deeply concerned by the growing number of cases where EU citizens have faced severe consequences due to errors or failures in the Home Office’s digital system. As you rightly point out, problems with proving immigration status can affect everything from healthcare access and housing to employment and education, all of which are fundamental rights people should be able to rely on.

We have heard of real-life experiences which highlight a system that is failing in both transparency and reliability, and we agree that this must be urgently addressed. The Liberal Democrats agree with Settled that a status system that leaves people in limbo, unable to prove their right to live, work, or access essential services in the UK, is not fit for purpose.

We believe EU citizens deserve a secure, reliable and inclusive form of proof of status. The Home Office must take urgent steps to restore confidence in the system, including commissioning an independent review into the operation of the eVisa platform and ensuring there are accessible backup forms of status available. Everyone who has the legal right to be in the UK should be able to prove it easily and consistently.

We continue to call for stronger UK–EU relations that go beyond the instability and bureaucracy of recent years, including by supporting Early Day Motion 1318. This EDM welcomes the progress made at this week’s UK–EU Summit, but also expresses concern that there is still much more to be done, not least on restoring people’s mobility rights and addressing the red tape many now face.

We greatly appreciate the work that Settled has done and continues to do. Please rest assured that Layla and her Liberal Democrat colleagues will keep pressing the Government to show greater ambition in resetting our relationship with Europe and to ensure that those who live, work, and contribute to communities in the UK, including long-standing EU residents, are treated with the dignity and security they deserve.

Thank you again for getting in touch.
 

Best wishes,

Office of Layla Moran
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Oxford West & Abingdon "

 

Ban police use of face recognition technology

At the suggestion of the Open Rights Group, I've written to my local council about police use of face recognition technology.

 "I am writing to urge you to to ban police use of live facial recognition technology in Abingdon East.

These surveillance tools are being deployed by police without public consent, or clear legal grounds, undermining the right to privacy, the right to be presumed innocent and making police misuse of the technology more likely.

These tools do not predict crime – they predict policing. Built on flawed, discriminatory data, they disproportionately target Black and racialised communities, low-income areas, and migrants. Rather than making our communites safer, these technologies reinforce racism and criminalise poverty.

“Predictive policing” strips away our fundamental right to be presumed innocent. It creates fear, not safety. The European Union has already recognised these harms and taken action to ban such technologies. The UK must do the same.

It is well documented that when police are given new tools, it is Black and racialised communities that bear the brunt of the harm, with consequences including increased police harassment, injury from use of force and unjust stop and search. I am deeply concerned for the safety of my neighbours if we are to allow police use of “crime predicting” technology to become anymore embedded in our neighbourhoods.

We all want to feel safe in our local areas, but real safety comes from investing in our communities – not from surveillance that fuels fear and distrust.

That is why I urge you to stand in solidarity with your local community, by bringing forward a motion to ban this dangerous tech. As your constituent, I want to feel confident that my rights and safety are being protected.

Please take urgent action to prohibit the use of “crime-predicting” technologies and protect the rights and freedoms of all."

Lib Dem response on Data Use & Access Bill

 I've had a reponse from the Liberal Democrats on my concerns about the Data Use & Access Bill.

 "Dear Ray,

Thank you for taking the time to write. We are responding on Layla’s behalf whilst she takes parental leave. You can view the full transcript of the Bill’s third reading, along with a record of Layla’s proxy votes on amendments, here. 

The Liberal Democrats welcome the omission of many of the more objectionable elements of the previous DPDI bill, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government but fell when the General Election was called.

Despite these changes, retention and enhancement of public trust in data use and sharing is a major issue in the bill. The focus on smart data and sharing of government data means that the Government must do more to educate the public about how and where our data is used and what powers individuals have to find out this information.

There are still major changes proposed to the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR), such as in regard to police duties and Automated Decision Making, which continue to make retention of data adequacy for the purposes of digital trade with the EU of the utmost priority in considering any changes.

We continue to believe that GDPR is not in need of fundamental reform, but rather, where there is any ambiguity in interpretation, clarifications incorporating relevant recitals to the GDPR should be made in the legislation and in improved guidance.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to follow the progress of this Bill closely. Thank you once again for taking the time to get in touch. 

Best wishes,

Office of Layla Moran"

Bottom line - the Lib Dems are not concerned about the expansion in data sharing proposed in the Bill, just that "that the Government must do more to educate the public" about it and the GDPR is not in need of reform.

Government plan to use eVisa scheme for immigration raids

The government has announced this week that the Home Office's flawed eVisa scheme will be used for immigration raids. So I've followed up my email to my MP to alert her to this development. The Open Rights Group are coordinating an effort to make MPs aware and ask for resistance to this scheme.

Dear Layla,

 I wrote to you recently about the Home Office’s flawed eVisa scheme.

 This week, little noticed in media reporting on the Prime Minister’s unconscionable ‘island of strangers’ targeting of immigrants speech, the Government announced that the eVisa scheme would be used to support immigration raids. If this goes ahead, people with the legal right to be in the UK could be deported because of flaws in the Home Office’s systems.

 Since the rollout of the eVisa scheme, the human rights organisation, the Open Rights Group, has heard about travellers stranded at airports, refugees unable to rent a home or get a job, and even a man being made homeless because of a data error. But these harms would pale into significance if eVisa data is used for immigration raids that result in deportation.

 Please will you contact  the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Yvette Cooper and urge her to stop eVisa data from being used for immigration raids and press again for the government to provide offline alternative for people to prove their immigration status when the eVisa is not working.  The seeds of another Windrush scandal have been sown and are sprouting.

 Regards,

 Ray

Response from government over concerns about Online Safety Act

My MP, Layla Moran, has had a response from the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, regarding concerns about the impact of the Online Safety Act on small, safe and harmless websites, and services.

 

 

Short version:

The Act is not intended to go after smalll websites and services. Small websites only have to follow the rules to produce risk assessments, defend those risk assessments if they conclude risks are low, provide complaints processes, police content, keep up to date with Ofcom's associated regulations & "Regulation Checker" & 'Digital Support Service', engage with Ofcom support services and have an Ofcom liason officer; and when it comes to compliance, Ofcom will focus on services where the risk and impact of harm is highest.

Mr Kyle concludes by hoping that this information provides some clarity and reassurance.

From my perspective the short answer is: Nope. The longer answer is... you know I don't currently have the capacity for this, so would refer you to the ever insightful, Graham Smith, generally for enlightening commentary on the Online Safety Act.