Introduction: Baroness Prentis of Banbury
European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cashman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to sign and ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights to promote the equality of all persons in the United Kingdom through a general prohibition of discrimination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government currently have no plans to ratify Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocol 12 is a very broadly drafted, free-standing right that creates unpredictability in how it will be given effect by the court, and it is not clear that ratifying it would increase protection from discrimination in the UK. The Equality Act 2010 provides a robust and clear framework within domestic law for combating discrimination.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, that is a disappointing response. I am not surprised by it, sadly, but I will persevere and try to convince the Government otherwise, along with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who cannot be in his place today, and Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds. I wish to ask a question of the Minister in the wider context. Given the attacks on fundamental human rights that we are witnessing in the United States of America, Gaza, Ukraine, parts of Europe and elsewhere, is now not the time for the United Kingdom to join the 37 other European states of the Council of Europe and reaffirm these international principles, which underpin and in fact define every civilised society?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The way that I will answer my noble friend is by saying that we continue to keep the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Protocol 12 under review, but we remain unconvinced of the benefits of ratification. The United Kingdom is not an outlier in this regard. The protocol was open for signature nearly 25 years ago, yet fewer than half the member states of the Council of Europe have ratified it. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord’s opening point that we need to keep these matters under review. There are indeed widespread attacks on democracy and our way of life across the world, and that reinforces the Government’s view about keeping these matters under review.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government are not yet prepared to sign up to Protocol 12, will they give a commitment to address the rights and protections afforded by the Equality Act—all the rights and protections—ensuring that all the protected characteristics are equally enforced and protected, especially in light of the confusing and confused narratives around the recent Supreme Court judgment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that I think the Supreme Court judgment made the situation clearer, not less clear. The nine protected characteristics within the Equality Act are all important in themselves. It is within the Equality Act that gender reassignment is recognised. People who are trans and who have gender recognition certificates have protected characteristics, and it is for the courts to work out in due course how those will manifest themselves.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we live in increasingly uncertain and divided times in so many parts of the world. Here in the UK, many people worry that populism, division and discrimination are on the rise. Signing up to Protocol 12 would make a big difference to all who fear discrimination and a reduction of our rights. Why, if the Government believe we are all equal—and I believe that they do—would the Minister not give to all our citizens the reassurance they need by signing up to Protocol 12?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness will have heard the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I agree that we are living in divided times. The position of the Government is that we do not think signing up to Protocol 12 would change that. We think that existing laws, including the Equality Act and the Supreme Court judgment, are adequate. However, as I have said to both my noble friends who asked the previous questions, we will continue to keep this under review, because I agree with the noble Baroness’s opening point that we are living in divided times and need to be sensitive to that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Equality Act and protected characteristics. Could he give any indication of whether the intention of the Government is to extend the number of categories of protected characteristics? I have in mind care leavers as an example. There is a substantial amount of pressure that they should be included as one of the protected characteristics.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not joined with other contracting states in their attempt to promote discussion about reform of the European convention, particularly in relation to immigration matters?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The first point is that the Government were not asked whether they wanted to be a signatory to that letter, which was for all members of the EU—it was they who signed the letter. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation very closely. We are sympathetic to some of the sentiments expressed in the letter, so we will continue to monitor that situation.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I am a Methodist minister, and I see so many people absolutely despairing. “What are we going to do?” “What will be the consequence of what is happening in the world at the present time?” Signing this will be one step: one indication that we know where we want to go. That is what the declaration is. So I urge the Government to do this. It is not just a fancy thing; it is so meaningful and so required in the world today. We could be one of the leading nations in that move to the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I recognise the noble Lord’s strength of feeling, but I have to repeat what I said in answer to an earlier question: only 20 of the contracting states within the Council of Europe—that is 20 out of 46—have signed up to this over the last 20 years. So I am afraid I do not accept his premise. However, as I have said to other noble Lords, I do accept the concern he raised initially, and we will continue to keep the matter under review.
Lord Kamall (Con)
In answer to the Question, the Minister said that the Government consider the provisions under Protocol 12 to be too wide or too broad. Can the Minister give the House some examples of where they consider those provisions to be too broad?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
So I will write to the noble Lord about that. Nevertheless, my point stands: many other states have considered this and have not at present decided to sign the protocol. It is worth pointing out that none of the larger states within the European Union or the Council of Europe have signed it, either.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have a duty not just to protect people’s rights and freedoms but to promote public understanding of those rights and freedoms. So can my noble friend the Minister explain why this further innovation of a free-standing right against discrimination in Protocol 12—as opposed to a right against discrimination in the context of other convention rights, such as Article 14, which we are signed up to—would not benefit people, in the light of his comments that the Equality Act already does the trick?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The fact of the matter is that we are seeing the law develop in these areas. We have had the Supreme Court judgment. I and the Government believe that the Equality Act is working well, and there will be development in law in this matter going forward. It is also right that there is very little common law associated with Protocol 12 for those states that have signed up to it. So, as I said, the Government are keeping an eye on this matter, but at present they do not believe that it is right to sign up to Protocol 12.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government then give a commitment to bring forward, as a matter of urgency, proposals outlined in the Labour manifesto and based on the Law Commission’s recommendations to widen hate crime law, including a widening on aggravated offences?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My noble friend will know that relevant Bills are coming to the House of Lords imminently. There are various provisions in those that are widening the protection of victims. On hate crime law, there are various measures in the Bills within that. But, if my noble friend wants to make specific suggestions, she is welcome to approach me as these Bills come forward to the House of Lords.
BBC World Service
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the BBC World Service in the long term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government highly value the BBC World Service and its contribution to our international objectives. We increased our contribution for this year. Decisions on the World Service funding settlement will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocations process. The Government’s view is that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential sustainable and predictable funding mechanisms for the World Service in the long term.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but horror stories abound in the press of Donald Trump and Elon Musk slashing staff programmes at the USAGM, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Does the Minister agree that the Chinese and Russian media would hail the Prime Minister as a hero if he allowed the FCDO to slash the BBC World Service budget? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no more cuts but instead further investment, in tandem with today’s defence budget, as in the “message to Moscow” just announced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reiterate that the BBC plays a crucial part in ensuring that the world is a safer place, and that people are knowledgeable about what is going on. What the US has done with the US Agency for Global Media and how that impacts is, of course, a matter for the US. However, I remind the noble Baroness that we have shown our commitment to the World Service this year with a funding uplift of £32.6 million—31%—in 2025-26. I repeat that any decisions on government funding for the World Service in future years will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocation process. But the importance of the World Service must not be underestimated.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I of course welcome the uplift my noble friend the Minister has spoken about, but does he agree that, today of all days, when we have a review of our defence commitments, what the BBC World Service is doing is worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it? Will he look again at the danger that the Russians and Chinese will step in if any slots are left vacant by the BBC?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not sure what my noble friend is saying. We stepped up our services in eastern Europe as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the BBC has just launched a new service covering Poland. So we absolutely understand the importance of its role and we will continue to do that, but the BBC has editorial independence, and how it allocates resources is a matter for it. However, I reassure my noble friend that we are committed to the BBC. We gave an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years, until the spending review process is concluded.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, 80% of the World Service budget is currently classed as official development assistance. Last time this Question came up, the Minister said that the Government would make detailed decisions on how the ODA budget would be used on the basis of various factors, including impact assessments. Can he confirm that the Government understand the crucial impact the World Service has in being a key part of our national security, countering myths and disinformation? To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs, defence is not just about arms.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, but I would make one correction—the figure is 70%. The point is that, prior to 2010, all the BBC World Service was independent, and it was the settlement the previous Government made as a consequence that shifted the responsibility on to the BBC. However, we did react when we felt that there was no focus, through the uplift and the grant from the FCDO. All the evidence points to the fact that this Government are absolutely committed to the BBC World Service, and we did provide an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years. The question originates from that long-term solution, and we are committed to using the charter review to make sure that we come up with an innovative solution that will be sustainable in the long term to ensure the future of the BBC World Service.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the BBC World Service is one of the world’s leading international radio broadcasters, with over 450 million listeners every week. However, it is vital in this multimedia world that the World Service moves with the times and remains competitive and relevant, so will the noble Lord outline to the House the Government’s view on how the World Service can tailor its content and format for a digital-native audience, especially the younger generations?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the points of this year’s uplift was to guarantee the continued presence of 42 language-based services, but over a range of platforms, so it is not just limited to normal radio and TV. The BBC has been looking at a range of platforms to ensure that its reach is maintained. Of course, the BBC is prioritising its service as a whole, both domestically and globally. The reach of the BBC goes beyond that of the World Service, and I hope that continues to be so.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Russian-backed media are now transmitting on the radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic. While the FCDO funding for 2025-26 is helping the World Service, as the Minister said, to maintain existing language and emergency services for those in crisis, including in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, this cannot be guaranteed after 2026 unless long-term FCDO funding is provided. Does the Minister agree that finding this funding is preferable to making space for Russia and China to move in instead?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I of course understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government uplifted the spending for 2025-26 to ensure that we can reach those people, particularly in Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The evidence shows that we are able to respond and will respond. It comes back to the original Question: we need to look at a longer-term, sustainable funding mechanism that is not trapped by this yearly review. We are absolutely committed to that, and I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s question.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, the World Service has been particularly effective at communicating issues of faith and freedom of religion. In light of the increasing need for and importance of this, will His Majesty’s Government ensure as a priority that there is sufficient funding for the World Service, and that this is both retained and enhanced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The BBC has certain editorial responsibilities, but the right reverend Prelate knows my commitment to freedom of religion and belief, and our appointment of the special envoy is evidence of that. Ensuring that news and views are available across all opinions, and across all religions, is vital in a world where so many conflicts can be driven by misinformation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, while it is absolutely right that defence and security are more than just arms, I say as an aside before I ask my question that actually having nuclear submarines means that you beat the blighters you are fighting against at sea, and that is quite useful at times as well, when you really have to do it. But my question to my noble friend the Minister is to do with BBC Monitoring, which is crucial in handling operations and crises as they happen. I remember, as a former Chief of Defence Intelligence, that it gives immense insight, and it has been squeezed and squeezed. Are we content that there is a sufficient funding bracket in place for that?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of that monitoring, and the challenges of a multipolar, global geopolitical situation mean that it is even more important. Maybe in the past it was relatively simple, but monitoring a whole range of activities— particularly of malign states and malign non-state organisations—is really important, so we are absolutely committed to that.
Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the draft Protection of Children Codes published by Ofcom on 24 April under the Online Safety Act 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome Ofcom’s protection of children codes, which will make a substantial difference to the online experience of children. From July, platforms will be required to use measures to protect children—such as highly effective age assurance and filtering out harmful algorithms—or face enforcement action. We will monitor implementation carefully, and Ofcom has said that it is clear that the codes are iterative. However, the codes are the foundation, not the limit, and we will not hesitate to strengthen the law further to ensure the safety of our children, if needed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, has drawn these codes to the attention of your Lordships’ House. The committee has particular concerns, especially around the potential regulatory gaps in the codes produced by Ofcom because they do not require regulated services to address all the risks identified in the risk assessments. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with Ofcom’s interpretation of the Online Safety Act? Will her department bring forward an urgent amendment to the Act to close this loophole and require regulated services to mitigate all the risks to children online—which Ofcom itself has comprehensively evidenced in its research—that those services might identify in their own risk assessments?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I should make it clear that Ofcom’s codes will improve child safety online and go beyond similar regimes elsewhere to achieve this. By regularly conducting thorough risk assessments, services can proactively identify emerging threats and adapt safety measures accordingly. The Government’s measures in the code allow Ofcom to hold companies accountable for their overall management of risks to children. Ofcom will monitor implementation of risk assessment processes and code measures, building on its approach where needed. The Government will separately monitor whether legislation needs to be strengthened.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, Ofcom has identified live-streaming as a functionality which causes harm. There is nothing in the codes requiring the tech companies to mitigate this risk. Does the Minister agree that such an urgent issue, which cannot wait until Ofcom’s additional safety measures consultation, should be included in the present children’s codes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Viscount has raised an important issue. Ofcom has recognised that live-streaming can pose specific risks to children and will consult on proposals to reduce these risks, alongside a number of other measures. It will publish this consultation before the Summer Recess. The Act and Ofcom’s codes are clear: services are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering primary priority content, including pornography. That will extend to live-streaming services that allow pornography.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare my ombudsman interest as set out in the register. The SLSC questioned, quite rightly, how practical it is for children to complain about harmful content and noted that it was unclear what further action children could take if a complaint was rejected by a service provider. How will Ofcom and the Government ensure that complaint mechanisms are truly practical, accessible and designed with a children-first approach? What independent recourse will children have if their complaints about harmful content are rejected by service providers?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord has done in promoting ombudsman services. He will know that the codes and the Act require that all service providers provide a named person to receive any complaints and for them to be able to demonstrate that they are acting upon them. We are aware that we need to monitor how effectively that is working, and, if needs be, we will supplement that with other measures. For the time being, we want to see that the named person and a proper complaints process is working as it should be.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act sets out in Section 1 that regulated services must be
“safe by design, and … designed and operated in such a way that … a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults”.
This requirement is the result of an amendment that was brought forward in this place. However, currently, Ofcom’s codes do not go far enough to actually bring this into practice. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will urgently amend the Online Safety Act to introduce a statutory code of practice for safety by design, to ensure that Ofcom delivers on the expectations of Parliament in this important area?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, safety by design is an absolutely fundamental principle of the Online Safety Act, and the Government have reiterated that in our strategic priorities which we have set out to Ofcom. We expect all platforms to implement safety by design and we will monitor the effectiveness of that.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this Chamber provides important scrutiny to the work that Ofcom does, but it is worth noting that the Online Safety Act was a mammoth Bill and that Ofcom has undertaken an absolutely mammoth task in being ready to carry forward this regulation. Does the Minister agree with me that Ofcom is fast becoming the most important and effective regulator in this field, and that all the people who have worked to make this happen deserve our sincere congratulations for the work they have achieved so far?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. He is absolutely right: this has been a mammoth exercise, and I am so pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of it. There are huge numbers of people working in Ofcom on this important issue. We very much hope that, with the implementation of the illegal content codes and now the children’s codes, there will be a step change in the way that everybody—particularly children—engages with platforms online. To give noble Lords a flavour of how this will affect children, the law means that platforms must protect children from seeing suicide, self-harm, pornography and violent content. This will make a real difference to children. I am very excited to see that platforms operate this, and it is important that Ofcom plays its part.
Lord Markham (Con)
The New Zealand Education Minister says that its school smartphone ban has led to more engagement and less cyberbullying. With Ofcom warning that harmful content often reaches children through algorithmic feeds on smartphones, can the Minister give one positive reason why we should allow smartphones to continue to be used in the classroom?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I think I have said here before, we are carrying out research to look at the implications of the use of smartphones for children. The Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupil learning, but we still need to learn the absolute lessons. The noble Lord raises important points about algorithms, and we hope to come back to noble Lords and Parliament with further details of how we are going to take this work forward.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has set out the progress that has been made since the Bill became an Act. That is to be welcomed, but, my goodness me, some of the stuff that is available to young people should shock and disturb us and keep us all the time on the front foot to do all that we can. Our children—children across the world—deserve protection from this awful stuff.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. As part of my role, I have seen horrendous material that I do not think anybody—not adults and certainly not children—should see. We are determined to get this right and to be forward-looking, because anything that we do in legislation needs to be fit for the next generation as well. There is no point legislating just for the now; we need to legislate for the future. We are very aware of that. We are continuing to talk to Ofcom and other stakeholders about how we can take this work forward. We are determined to make this a safe place for children to grow up and thrive.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the research that the Government are doing on the impact of phones on children. The research is overwhelming on the impact of screen use on early years development for children, but there appears to be no specific guidance to help parents navigate that. What are the Government doing to ensure that parents of preschool children get proper, age-appropriate guidance on the use of screens?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are looking at what further advice we can give to parents. This is a sensitive issue and, as the noble Baroness will understand, we must be careful in how we raise these issues. We all understand that children often have a very different experience and a detailed knowledge of how smartphones work from their parents, so we have a role in education. Obviously, media literacy is an important part of that, but we are looking again at what further guidance we can give to parents.
Channel Tunnel: International Rail Strategy
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s proposals to create an international rail strategy to increase the usage of the Channel Tunnel from the existing 50 per cent for passengers and 10 per cent for freight.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the recent report. This Government support a thriving international rail passenger services market, given the benefits of greater choice, new services and lower fares, as well as the opportunity of serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford with international trains. We are also keen to see the growth of international rail freight, which supports the Government’s growth mission; we are working hard to increase freight flows through the tunnel.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer, but he will know that in 2010 Deutsche Bahn brought one of its ICE trains through the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras with a view to starting through services to Germany from 2012. Other companies have indicated a similar interest, but nothing at all has happened. Does my noble friend agree not only that it is important to increase the use of stations that are now out of use, such as Ebbsfleet and Ashford, but that the tunnel access charges need to be reduced if these services are to be competitive? On freight, is he aware that the amount of freight currently going through the Channel Tunnel by rail is less than went on the train ferries operated by British Rail more than 30 years ago?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I think I was there when the Deutsche Bahn train was at St Pancras in 2010; sadly, as my noble friend says, that did not materialise. There is currently a real opportunity for more passenger traffic to more destinations, and this Government are determined to seize it. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently signed a memorandum of understanding with her Swiss counterpart to explore the setting up of a direct connection with Switzerland.
On the charging situation, the access charging framework for the Channel Tunnel provides for an incremental reduction in unit charges as traffic levels increase. Eurotunnel also operates a discount scheme for new routes; HS1 is currently consulting on a similar scheme. Those are important for new entrants. The recent review of the control period charges by the Office of Rail and Road reduced them by 10.4% for passenger trains and by 66% for freight trains. The volume of freight needs to increase; it would be good if it were greater than what the old train ferries coped with.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, when the Channel Tunnel opened 31 years ago on 6 May, the forecast for freight traffic was between 8 million and 10 million tonnes. It peaked at 3 million tonnes then fell to 1 million tonnes. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said in his Question, there is enormous scope for taking freight off our roads and putting it through the tunnel. What specific measures do the Government envisage taking to achieve this?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that those statistics are disappointing. As she notes, the aspiration then was for far more than currently exists. In answer to the previous question, I said that real reductions in charges, particularly for freight on HS1 and the charging regimes for both the tunnel and HS1, will help to encourage freight traffic. I am spending a lot of my time speaking to potential Channel Tunnel users to demonstrate to them the Government’s enthusiasm for more freight through the tunnel.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the report’s finding that better international rail links could replace 6.5 million short-haul flights per year, will the Government commit to cross-departmental work to actively shift passengers from air to rail for short international travel? That has the potential to cut CO2 emissions by up to 680,000 tonnes annually.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right about the environmental benefits of travelling by train and of replacing short-haul air traffic. That is why we are putting in so much effort to create opportunities now for greater use of the tunnel to more destinations and by more operators. I have recently seen all but one of the potential competitors for Eurostar. The noble Baroness may know that the greatest difficulty is the availability of depot space in London. The Office of Rail and Road recently concluded an interim report, and I have asked the department to look urgently at other sites that can be used to increase depot capacity and therefore the number of passenger trains through the tunnel.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the only high-speed line we have in this country is the 70-mile line from London to the Channel Tunnel, which opened in 2007. In the meantime, countries all around the world have been developing high-speed rail, while we, under the previous Tory Government, simply cancelled two of the high-speed lines that were being prepared. First, can my noble friend at the very least protect the routes of the planned lines to the north-west and the north-east? Secondly, is it not time that this Government developed a strategy for high-speed rail, which is being done by so many comparable countries across the world?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right to refer to the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a of HS2 by the previous Government. One of the first questions I answered in this House was from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who asked me what the alternative was. The truth is that the previous Government cancelled phase 2a without regard to any alternative, and this Government have to devise what they will now do. We have an even more urgent job than that, because the present state of HS2 as a project is not where any of us would like it to be. It was neglected by the previous Government, so we have to fix that—which the new chief executive is in the course of doing—and we then have to persuade ourselves that investment in railways of this sort is good because it will allow us to manage them properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister reveals himself, in his answers, to be a great enthusiast for competition and open access on the HS1 line. Why then have eight of the last nine applications for new open access routes on the Network Rail services been turned down?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that those decisions, at least on open access, are currently made by the Office of Rail and Road. He also needs to note that the Government have not subsidised HS1, Eurostar or Getlink, unlike the national railway network, which receives billions of pounds in subsidy at the taxpayer’s expense. Therefore, when looking at open access applications, we have to consider the net effect of the railway subsidy for this country as a whole. He is also ignoring the fact that the Channel Tunnel is underused. The report to which my noble friend Lord Faulkner referred says that it is only half used by passengers and that only 10% of its possible freight capacity is used. That suggests that we should be enthusiastic about its greater use—unlike most of the national railway network, which is very nearly full. I referred to the question to me from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, about the west coast main line. There are very few paths and, consequently, we should be very careful in their allocation, especially to competing train services other than those franchised by the Government.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about encouraging greater traffic through the Channel Tunnel, but what can be done to convince the north of England, Scotland and the more distant parts of the United Kingdom that this will not be of benefit just to London and the south-east? At the moment there is a tremendous growth of long-distance sleeper services on the continent. Could these not be encouraged by the Government?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He will remember that the original idea was to have through services from the Midlands, the north, Scotland and the west of England, and sleeper services too, but they were discontinued before many of them started operating because the business case and the economics of them were quite weak. For the moment, we think the best thing we can do is to encourage a multiplicity of destinations with reasonable speed and frequency, which will generate traffic and encourage people to travel by train, even though they might need to change in London.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware that a single goods train journey can remove 70 HGV journeys from the roads, and in some cases even more? That being the case, would not expanding the rail network—and that includes high-speed rail—free up capacity on the road network, therefore making the road network significantly safer?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that rail freight is extremely environmentally friendly; that is why this Government are spending a lot of time and effort to encourage rail freight. This includes setting a target for the new Great British Railways to increase the level of freight, but also remembering that freight needs its own space on the network for train paths. That refers back to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about open access and is another reason to be careful about allocating all the space on the railway to competing passenger operations.
Allowances
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) The Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from 1 June 2025.
(2) For paragraph 4 substitute—“(4) The maximum daily amount payable to a Member should be £125.”
(3) For paragraph (7) substitute—“(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.”
(4) In respect of a day of attendance before 1 June 2025, the Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the second Motion at the same time, but I will move and speak to the third Motion separately.
In April 2024, the noble Lord, Lord True, as Leader of the House, moved a Motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise the increased cost of staying in London, away from Peers’ main homes. That scheme set a rate of £100, which noble Lords based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel. The scheme was welcomed across the House and followed representations from, and discussions with, those who chaired the main party groups and the convenor. It was agreed that it should be reviewed after about a year of operation, and these changes proposed result from that review.
The first change relates to the amount that can be claimed. The scheme was automatically uprated in line with inflation, so it is now £103 a night. It is hard to pick an exact amount, but this figure is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital. The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 a night. This will continue to be uprated in line with inflation. As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.
The existing scheme covers only hotel-type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements in London to enable their attendance in the House. The commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat-rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63 per night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, noble Lords must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.
These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. They are to ensure the original purpose: to assist Members from outside London to be able to attend your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put to the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance. I was very grateful for her support on that, and I am very happy to reciprocate the full support from this side following the very careful consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere, under the guidance of the noble Baroness.
It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission, in its decision on the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. Talking of hard work, I may say that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is next to me, last week completed 34 years on the Front Bench in your Lordships’ House. If that is not a definition of hard work, I do not know what is.
There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. You do not become rich by becoming a Member of the House of Lords; many people here make great sacrifices. We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day’s work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.
Rather than wearying the House, I say in advance that I strongly support the noble Baroness’s further Motion, because that also relates to hard-working and valued Members of the House. So again I thank the noble Baroness and commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I support this Motion. I have a very simple question for the Leader. Bearing in mind what happened during the period up to 2009, have the usual channels thought carefully about what the phrase
“where it is necessary to do so”
means? Will there be some sort of check, for instance, or will it be a pure self-declaration as it used to be before—which led us into a bit of trouble?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the Motion before the House. The noble Lord quotes “where it is necessary to do so”, but I am not quite sure where he is referring to in my comments or in the report. However, I think his point is about the verification, and I will address that first. He is right to address that because it must be a very robust process of verification. They will require a copy of the council tax statement, and for those many of those who have a second place in London where they stay, it will say “Second Home” on it; it specifies that it is not their main home. In addition to the council tax statement, there will of course be a record of people’s travel patterns back and forward to the House. So it is quite clear that if someone is travelling from another part of the country to stay in London for a few days to ensure they can carry out their duties in this House, that would be another point of verification. The noble Lord is right to raise the point, but this is why the commission took a long time to look at this, to give consideration to ensure that we were confident on that point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. Indeed, I supported him when he first raised this issue last time last year. There is a balance of responsibilities both to the taxpayer and to Members of this House, but we would be the poorer if the only people who could attend your Lordships’ House to undertake their responsibilities were those who either lived in London or had private finance to enable them to stay in London.
This is less than is received in other places in overnight allowance; it is a contribution towards it, and Members will use their daily allowance to pay the rest of it. I appreciate the support from both noble Lords, and I hope that Members will agree that this is a way forward if we are to represent not only those who can afford to live in London.
Lord Geddes (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give me clarification. I use as an illustration my own situation, which I know is far from unique. I rent the use of a room in an apartment in London on an annual basis, but, as I read the Motion and the details in the financial support document, I will not be able to claim any reimbursement for the rent I pay for the use of that room. Is that so?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Depending on the circumstances, that may be the case. It is where somebody is responsible for paying more than just the rent for a single room. I do not know if the noble Lord is on the council tax bill or what other costs he incurs, but it is not for those who stay in rooms of family and friends. It is for hotel bills and for those whose name is on the council tax form to show that they are staying there. The noble Lord will have to discuss that with the finance team, but he may not be covered renting a room in a friend’s house.
London Accommodation Costs Allowance
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an accommodation costs allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 1 June 2025 as provided for below.
(2) Members are eligible to claim the London accommodation costs allowance—
(a) if the Member’s registered residential address is outside Greater London,
(b) the Member has a recorded attendance,
(c) as a contribution towards the costs of accommodation in Greater London incurred in staying overnight away from their registered residential address where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of attendance.
(3) “Attendance” means attendance—
(a) at a sitting of this House,
(b) at a meeting of a Committee of this House, or
(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
(4) The daily amount payable to a Member should be £63.
(5) The daily amount can be claimed for each day of recorded attendance or each night which falls immediately before a day of recorded attendance.
(6) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.
(8) In paragraph 7(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
(9) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 7(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.
Supplementary Daily Allowance
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance after 1 April 2025 as the chair of a domestic committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.
(2) The amount of the allowance payable shall be the applicable rate of the daily allowance or the reduced daily allowance at the time.
(3) The maximum entitlement applicable for the supplementary daily allowance is 3 additional days per month provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.
(4) The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, as set out in the commission report of 29 April this year. It is intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside formal meetings, and it works by enabling them to claim a maximum of three extra days a month on top of those they can claim through attending the House or a committee meeting. However, it will ensure that for any month, the total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting days of the House. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start to consider the Commons message on the data Bill, I want to remind the House of the courtesies and discipline we should apply to ping-pong. We have now spent over 40 hours debating the Bill as a whole, including over six hours in the last two rounds of ping-pong. This is much longer than usual, and the issue that is left in play is well known to noble Lords. I therefore expect few speeches and any Member who does speak to be concise and to the point. We do not need long, Second Reading-type speeches at this stage. I am grateful in advance to noble Lords for applying this discipline and have asked the Whips to monitor this and to intervene if necessary if we look to be going off track.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd June 2025
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Marshalled List for Consideration of Commons Reason - (30 May 2025)
17:15 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 116 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49E.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start today’s debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun Recess, when the elected House once again overturned the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to the Bill. I am sure many noble Lords will have read these in Hansard, but for those who have not, I urge them to do so, as they were well received. The single remaining issue—AI and copyright—is one I know that many noble Lords care deeply about, and with good reason. It is imperative that we become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world-leading creative industries, a country whose economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and, very importantly, fair.
As I have said before, we must get this right to ensure that we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about how the consultation and the Bill collided and how, by indicating a preferred option, the Government appeared to have prematurely taken a side in this important debate.
I also want to ensure that noble Lords have complete clarity on our approach and how it has always been separate from the data Bill, which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law. To reiterate, the Government have an open mind about the outcome of the consultation. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it, many of whom have interesting ideas which deserve full consideration.
It is completely understandable that noble Lords have sought to use this Bill to set a direction of travel for future regulation in this area. They are right to have asked the questions that they have. I hope that the additional assurances that I will give today provide confidence that despite continuing to resist the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we truly want to solve these issues and have a plan to do so.
Outside the legislative process, the Government will continue to do our utmost to analyse and resolve the issues. We are studiously considering the thousands of responses to the consultation. The Secretary of State is setting up expert working groups to bring people together from technology and the creative sectors to chart the way forward in a full range of areas, with a particular emphasis on transparency and technical standards. We are committed to listening—genuinely listening—to a broad range of views. The noble Baroness’s assertion that government only ever listens to big tech is as unfair as it is unfounded. The Secretary of State and Minister Bryant have met representatives of the creative industries as well as Members of both Houses to hear from them. We will of course make sure that noble Lords are informed about the progress and outcomes of the working groups at every stage possible, not least as I am sure that there will be many questions tabled on this by noble Lords. I look forward to answering them.
As noble Lords know, we have committed in the Bill to report on economic impacts and the use of copyright in the development of AI systems within 12 months of Royal Assent. This will be an important staging post as we move forward with the consultation process and subsequent regulatory change. Today, I want to give some further reassurances on the Government’s trajectory and commitments to speed and parliamentary accountability.
First, I can confirm that the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment: how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom. The first issue has been raised in this House, including by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The latter is an issue that has invoked financial privilege in the other place, but where it is right for the Government to put forward their view.
Secondly, to reflect our shared view that these issues need to be resolved quickly, we will publish an economic impact assessment—and the report required by the Bill—within nine months of Royal Assent, rather than 12. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. Thirdly, if we are not in a position to publish final documents within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament a report setting out the progress being made towards their publication. I hope that this gives noble Lords the assurances that they need that our work will not be done behind closed doors. We want to make progress in a manner that involves Parliament and relevant stakeholders.
As a final word, I know that this debate has been heated at times. The wider world looks to us in this place to debate with courtesy—“to disagree agreeably”, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in response to last summer’s King’s Speech. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider their words today, to avoid the language of betrayal and conflict and to try to find a measured and civil tone through which we can trace our path forward. Finding the right way forward means dealing with the issues together and coming up with workable, considered solutions. It is in nobody’s interest if we rush towards the wrong conclusion or ineffective regulation.
Time and again in previous Sessions, promises were made and legislation rushed through only for us to go through the entire process again when it was found to be inadequate. We said that we would legislate better and we are determined to do so. That means consulting properly, following the additional deliberative processes that I have set out, and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament and both sides of the argument can have confidence in. I urge noble Lords on all sides of this House: let us get on with sorting out this issue, rather than creating yet another standoff with the House of Commons and delaying the processes that we have put in the Bill. The creative and technology industries want certainty, not constitutional crises.
I hope that my remarks today give noble Lords confidence in the Government’s approach, which has accountability at its heart and will allow us to put this important Bill to bed. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Kidron
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D—
“Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs
(1) Within three months of the publication of the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out his or her view on—
(a) the scale of copyright infringement of works used as a data input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, where that infringement is conducted by a relevant trader or by third parties from which they source data inputs, and whether conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas,
(b) the impact of such copyright infringement on the United Kingdom economy, businesses, and individual copyright owners,
(c) the impact of such copyright infringement on the ability of UK-registered companies, in particular small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, to compete on a level playing field in the market for AI models with relevant traders that conduct such copyright infringement (especially overseas), and
(d) the adequacy of existing statutory and regulatory powers which support copyright owners in identifying and preventing such copyright infringement, including but not limited to transparency requirements on relevant traders.
(2) On the same date as the statement, the Government must publish a draft Bill containing legislative proposals to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models made available by relevant traders.
(3) In this section a “relevant trader” is a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an AI model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (4).
(4) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(5) The draft Bill must require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information that will allow them to identify—
(a) the use of their copyright works used,
(b) the means by which those works were accessed, and
(c) the identity of third parties from which data inputs were sourced, in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(6) The draft Bill may require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with other information from that which is required under subsection (5) to allow them to identify the legal basis for the use of their copyright works as data inputs to the AI models.
(7) The draft Bill may contain provisions that apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered.
(8) The draft Bill must make provision for enforcement of its provisions.
(9) The Secretary of State must, in the statement required under subsection (1) or in an accompanying document, set out his or her view on the expected effectiveness of the legislative proposals set out in the draft Bill required under subsection (2) for supporting copyright owners in identifying and preventing copyright infringement by relevant traders and third parties from which they source data inputs, whether that infringement is conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas.
(10) The Secretary of State must lay the draft Bill before the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny.
(11) The “relevant Parliamentary Committee” is a reference to the Parliamentary Committee in each House, or the joint Committee of both Houses, which—
(a) is charged with responsibility by its House or by both Houses for the purposes of this section, and
(b) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.””
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, most noble Lords have made their minds up about the substance, but I think it is important to say why we are here again. There is no argument that copyright material is being stolen. The Secretary of State has already said at the Dispatch Box in the other place that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models. There is no longer an argument about whether copyright law is uncertain. All three Ministers have now declared that UK copyright law is untouched by the data Bill and any previous suggestions that it was uncertain are now discredited.
Ministers continue to say, however, that this is the wrong Bill, yet the press release heralded the Bill as unlocking the power of data to grow the economy. The prevention of mass theft and the inevitable resulting growth of a dynamic licensing market would indeed grow the economy. Meanwhile, the Public Bill Office and the clerks in the other place have no problem. Indeed, thanks to your Lordships’ House, transparency has been in the Bill three times. There is only one problem: political will.
The first iteration of a copyright amendment in my name was during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill when Labour was still in opposition. At the time, the noble Baroness, who is now the Minister, said that she hoped that that Bill would
“deliver that long-overdue copyright protection that we all seek”.—[Official Report, 22/1/24; col. GC 162.]
Eighteen months ago, there were no concerns on the Labour Benches about enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they recognised that the issue warranted immediate intervention. Since that time, a comprehensive transparency regime that included enforcement was put forward by your Lordships, but the Government voted to take it out, saying that it was too comprehensive. The next amendment followed the Government’s own timeline and scope, but made provision for regulation. The Government voted that out too, saying that it was too soon—too soon to uphold the law, too soon to stop stealing, acknowledged by all.
Noble Lords, artists, musicians, designers, writers, conductors and even the UK indigenous AI community—who we have worked with side by side, throughout—are baffled as to why the Government are deliberately standing in the way of UK citizens and companies who are trying to control and protect their own property. Some are suggesting that the Government, the Civil Service and No. 10 are all wage-earners. They simply do not understand that the £126 billion creative industry is largely made up of freelancers whose income, sickness benefit, pension, maternity and holiday pay are not contractual but provided by royalties—royalties that are dependent on copyright.
Some think that the Government are too proud to admit the mistakes of their ill-fated consultation, which was widely condemned as too little, too late, and the proposals within it considered partisan—so much so that even Ministers had to backtrack. It has no timeline and, indeed, a successful campaign by rights holders has overwhelmed the process. The vast majority of the 11,500 submissions are from creative companies and individuals whose work is being stolen right now and who need the transparency to create a level playing field. Yet rather than respond to their urgent cry, the Secretary of State, as he stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place defending the Government’s decision to overthrow the Lords’ transparency amendment, said that it would not be fair to one to sector privilege another.
It is extraordinary that the Government’s decided, immovable and strongly held position is that enforcing the law to prevent the theft of UK citizens’ property is unfair to the sector doing the stealing. In what other industrial context does being fair require a national Government to support thieves to continue their plunder while simultaneously removing tools of protection from the victim? Balancing and being fair sounds reasonable, but it is not fair, balanced or reasonable to stand by while one sector steals from another in full view.
The amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on 19 May did not demand that the Government take a side; it simply provided transparency so that the creative industry could protect itself. The Government have voted and will vote again today to make indigenous AI and creative industries defenceless.
Before recess, I hosted a five-hour meeting at which creatives were joined by many AI companies and experts to discuss technical issues around transparency. There were myriad technical solutions but all agreed that changing the incentives is what is urgent and that the tech would follow.
AI is the technology of now and the future. It requires vast swathes of data—sometimes very high-quality data, sometimes both. It is built on data. Data is a valuable component of AI. As I said to the House last time we debated the Bill, some of that data is the most valuable in British hands. It can be made available under licence—indeed, it is often licensed already—but, more often, it is still being taken without permission and without payment. This Government, in all their actions, are not only giving tacit permission to steal, but are determinedly standing in the way of UK property owners identifying the thief.
It is bewildering to me that Ministers looking back on the last two decades of the tech sector business model believe that we should damage or give away our second biggest industrial sector on the promise that we will be overwhelmed by benefits in the future. They are sacrificing both the UK creative industries and the UK AI and digital industries by leaving our valuable content and data freely open to big tech companies. These incumbents will destroy a sector that amounts to 5% of the UK economy, just as they previously torpedoed the commercial viability of UK media. They will prevent UK AI start-ups from growing by allowing big tech to sew up that market too.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I propose to be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a formidable speech, has set out all the issues. Still, I will make a couple of points.
The first is that I do not like protracted ping-pong. I think it is constitutionally not great. When it happened when I was a Minister in the other place, I was none too pleased. However, the difference between then and now is that when your Lordships sent something to the other place, first, it was established that the Government would not comment on it until they had considered it properly, and, secondly, you would have discussions with whoever had proposed the amendment and try to find an accommodation in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got on to the statute book. On many occasions when I was irritated, I came to realise that actually what the House of Lords was saying was absolutely right, and that in that House there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about—and today the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is one of those people.
The second is that on this occasion I think it is perfectly apparent that Ministers’ response has been to stick their fingers in their ears and basically continue saying the same thing, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister’s introductory remarks today, although when a Minister starts complaining about the tone of the debate you know they have lost the argument.
To me, as a Conservative, this is a vital issue. For a Conservative, the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a free society. That is a fundamental principle which I believe is shared on all sides of the House; in respect of the last debate that we had, we saw a huge majority in the House asking the Government to think again.
I have not always been a Conservative; when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
One of the things that I believed then and still believe now is that people have a right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that people have the right to be able to own their property and that they have the right to sell their labour in a fair and reasonable manner. I am afraid that the Government are running headstrong against that basic principle, which again I would have thought could be accepted on both sides of the House.
What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with something we are absolutely brilliant at. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Channel 4 programme “The Piano”, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. The talent in this country that we do not know about is amazing—unbelievable talent, people who can compose and play the piano to a level that is just extraordinary. Those people will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech.
Now I am going to say something that will upset the Minister, and she will say that I am being unfair to the Government. It just looks to me as though crony capitalism and the Government have got into bed together and the Government are being told, “Just give this away and we will give you data centres outside your main cities”—quite where the electricity is going to come from to run this is another issue, but I will not divert—“and you will be leaders in the world”. Only a very naive Minister would believe that kind of nonsense. Where does it end?
What makes the Government think that the other place, or the Government, have the authority to give away people’s property and their right to earn a living? That is the issue raised here today. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that, although I deprecate extended ping-pong, on this occasion, the House of Lords is doing its duty, which is speaking up for the interests of the country. I hope that the Government will listen, that the noble Baroness’s amendment will be carried with a good majority, and that the Government will think again.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I find it worrying that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is probably more worrying for him.
Now is not the time for long speeches but for commitment. I support this amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on so brilliantly moving it. I refer to my registered interests as a rights holder. To the Government Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, I say that, as a rights holder and a royalties holder, reassurances do not, sadly, pay the rent, but royalties do.
When it comes to technology, creatives have embraced every single challenge of developing technology—from the printing press to cable and satellite television, television on demand, streaming, Spotify and so on. We have always proceeded on the basis that the user must pay. Now is not the time to deflect from that principle and now is not too late for the Government to embrace that principle.
It is incomprehensible for me to believe that jobbing actors, singers, writers and other creatives—people at the beginning or at the end of their careers—will be able to police the internet in such a way as to find those using their material so that they can then opt in or opt out. That is not part of the reality of people in the creative professions.
It is for those most in need of the protection of copyright that I speak—it is they who will lose the most. It is for them that I urge your Lordships to support the amendment. It is reasonable, and I believe any reasonable Secretary of State should welcome and indeed embrace it.
Finally, for the record, much has been said about Minister Peter Kyle. He is a good, decent, fair and highly intelligent person, and a friend of many years. I say to him and to the Government that the art of compromise is to give a little in order that we all win a lot—and I am not talking about the dog food. Therefore, I think it is in the Government’s domain to move forward, to compromise and to accept the amendment as—to quote the Minister—a workable solution, because it makes sense.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening statement. Once again, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her mission to protect the future of our creative industries, its rights and its intellectual property. Technological progress does not always make things better for humanity and it often comes with hidden long-term consequences. That is why the Government have to be wise and put measures in place to protect us, before it is too late.
So many people have contacted me to express their anger that the Government are selling them down the river. I feel it is my duty, once again, to voice their concerns. This includes those in the publishing world. Many publishers are deeply worried that their content has already been stolen and that there is no provision in current copyright law to stop this happening. They are anxious that, if the tech companies are allowed to freely steal content, it will destroy the publishing world as we know it and take away their long-term livelihood.
It is not just those in the publishing world, but people across our world-class, highly respected and admired creative industries: film, television, music, photography, arts, performers—the list is endless. This sector is one that brings in billions to the economy. That is why it is essential that, even as we embrace the benefits of AI, we must also enforce the long-standing UK copyright law, first established at the beginning of the 18th century, which formed the basis of worldwide copyright law. We cannot allow this to be undermined.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on this measure, because I had assumed that, after the Bill had gone to the House of Commons, it would accept the arguments that have been adduced in this place in the previous debates and realise that this is not only a wrong Bill but a very harmful one for the creative talents in our countries.
What I find particularly strange about it is that it is totally alien to the attitude taken by the Labour Party since 1900. In 1900, the trade unions and the early people—the Fabians—were totally in favour of supporting British culture. No one was more so, strangely enough, than Keir Hardie. One of my grandfathers knew Keir Hardie. My grandfather was the secretary of a trade union, and got the post because he was one of the few dock workers who could read and write. He became a friend of Keir Hardie, who often stayed with him when he came down to Newport. My grandfather persuaded Keir Hardie to realise that, if the lot of the working class was really to be improved, and they were able to enjoy the great culture of Britain, they first had to read and be easy in reading. That has been one of the main features of the Labour Party since 1900. The party has been prominent in that and takes great pride in it.
In 1936, when Allen Lane published the first Penguin—a paperback book that cost only sixpence—it was a revolution, and Clement Attlee recognised it as such. The cost of a hardbound book with a dust jacket was £1. How could a working man in 1936—when the average wage of a labourer was only £5 a week—afford a book costing £1? Clement Attlee realised that that was a real revolution and spoke out in favour of it, and when he became Prime Minister after the war the Arts Council was set up. In the first Labour Government, from 1964 to 1970, Jennie Lee became the first Minister for the Arts. Not only that but she trebled the amount of money that the Arts Council had and did much to promote the National Theatre—she laid the foundation stone of it.
So Labour has always in its history supported culture, British culture and creative people. This is directly against the tradition of Labour, and it should realise that. Where are the spokesmen on the Back Benches in this House or in the House of Commons who are getting up and supporting the Government? They do not exist, as far as I can see. Does anybody on the Labour Back Benches want to get up and support the Government? The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is going to support the amendment—they should have the courage to follow him.
The Minister did not really talk about the damage that could be done to the creative talents of our country, but perhaps she could look at last week’s Times Literary Supplement, in which there are eight articles by British authors, all of whom are very worried by this. They fear that they are having their particular characteristics taken away and stolen for nothing, and they will not be able to earn a living. One of those writers is Katherine Rundell, a fellow of All Souls and a quite brilliant writer of children’s fantasy books. Another great writer, Ishiguro, has also attacked the Bill, as has Salman Rushdie, the most read English writer in the world. So where are the supporters for this proposal?
The Minister should stop listening to the large tech companies in America, many of which have existed for only four years, and listen to the great cultural experts in our country, who are celebrating a culture that extends over 1,000 years. That is what we should be proud of. The Government should realise that this is a wrong Bill and a disgraceful Bill, and I do not think that a wrong and disgraceful Bill should lie on our statute books.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I, too, have an aversion to ping-pong, having spent 23 years in the House of Commons and having been a Minister—and having experienced it overnight, with people having to sleep in their offices. Often, it became more “pong” than “ping”, after that extended period of time.
In this instance, there is a lot of justification for your Lordships’ House insisting on the Government taking another look and perhaps coming forward with their own compromise, which many noble Lords have called for. I very much welcome the tone taken by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, who spoke at the Dispatch Box himself on that occasion to admit that errors may have been made in issuing the consultation and in the position taken by the Government then, which may have triggered a lot of the debate we are having on the Bill.
Although he is also a Gwent boy, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who said that this is a terrible Bill. It is not a terrible Bill, but it does have a massive lacuna: the issue of AI and its impact on creators and their livelihoods. It is a matter of livelihoods, of people paying their rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said.
I also welcome the tone of and comments made by my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks. I welcome what she said about enforcement, economic impact assessments and committing to bring forward a report in six rather than nine months. Those are all welcome additional commitments that we have not necessarily heard before. However, she felt that not adding these amendments or something similar to the Bill would give greater certainty, and here, I disagree with her. She said that creative industries and the tech industries want certainty. In my view, certainty would be provided if we accepted today’s amendment, or indeed the previous amendments the noble Baroness has proposed, because they give greater certainty to everyone that copyright will be enforced in this country and that the means to enforce it will be available through greater transparency.
Last Thursday, some of us in this place—I refer to my declaration of interests, including as a member of the Ivors Academy—went along to the Ivor Novello awards, which celebrates the great songwriters and composers of this country. Ivor Novello, whose original name was Ivor Davies, was born in my old constituency of Cardiff West, and there is a plaque on the very street around the corner from my house indicating where he was born. The Ivor Novello awards are a reminder that we are world leaders in creativity, as other noble Lords have said, and that we are net exporters of that creativity. Our great creativity is a foreign currency earner for this country, and we should not get into bed with anyone who seeks to undermine that.
The amendment being put forward by the noble Baroness is a modest amendment—some might say too modest, compared to what could be done if the Government came forward with their own in lieu. But that is exactly what the Government should do: they should make their case, rather than invoking financial privilege on every occasion. Although it is the Commons’ right to do that, in my view the argument should be made. If this is the wrong pathway, why is it the wrong pathway? Transparency is what is needed, and it is needed now.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. In the United States, a revealing battle is under way, not only about competing with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. Thirty-one US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation; it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce is federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely, imposing a decade-long moratorium. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility, yet the states persist, introducing 550 new Bills this year alone.
We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China’s intellectual property theft, the foundation of its economic rise. Now, we permit Silicon Valley the same privilege. The Government’s wait-and-see prevarication is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone: no new law, no regulatory burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the Government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves their consultation. It demands only visibility. This is a test of whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI by giving creators the simple right to see who is taking their work. I therefore urge the House to support this amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Labour Benches, may I say that I actually support the Government’s position on this occasion? The reason is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has, with great force of personality, made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property, and I think she has won that battle. It would be impossible in future, in the coming year or so, for a Government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns.
I am a massive supporter of the creative industries, which make an enormous and growing contribution to the country—and not just an economic one. They are part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are. As my noble friend Lord Bragg has often said, they offer people of all social classes the opportunity to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible. So, while I am very sympathetic, I do not think that this simple amendment is the right vehicle to put in place a whole new copyright law.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Well, I do not quite see how passing this amendment is going to solve the problem; let us put it like that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.
Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House who were sitting in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago listening to the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and myself. During that brief debate—as usual, it was time-limited—there were no fewer than 13 interventions on the Secretary of State from around the House. Of the 13, nine came from Labour’s own Back Benches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees; not a single person said, “You have got it right, we accept all these apologies and we are going in the right direction”.
If you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice-President of the United States at the February AI summit in Paris, it is very clear what the White House and the Trump Administration are intending to do. It is America first, America second, America third, up to the power 10. That is their very clear intent.
If you look at the comments of OpenAI and Google when they talk about their input into the consultation that is taking place with our own Government, you see that their position and intent are crystal clear; they are against transparency and are basically saying that it is too late to act on all the information they have already taken as they have the ability to use it, and in fact they want and need even more.
However, the backdrop to that—as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said—is that there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago, the US Office of Copyright—if you like, the guardian of copyright in US law—issued a report which directly challenges many of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to make sure the White House can override them, and they intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up to what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
Three months after the Government’s own report, this amendment allows Parliament to be informed on the scale of theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.
Does the Minister agree that those measures assist the process of copyright protection here while setting a useful standard abroad, including within the 46 states’ human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a much-respected member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman?
In sending out the right message from the United Kingdom, not least is this proposed amendment also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, safeguarding, privacy and personal data.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will make a short intervention, not least because my noble roommate, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has just spoken, and we share a birthday—this week, 5 June. It is the first time in this Chamber that two people with the same birthday have spoken consecutively, and that is an important point to note.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
We only need the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who also shares our birthday, to speak after me, and we will be making history, even if we do not pass this amendment.
I will steer a middle course, if I may, because, if this amendment is not passed, I do not believe—I know this is heresy to say so—that the creative industries will collapse. However, nor do I believe that, if the amendment is passed, the AI revolution and Britain’s lead in it will come to a grinding halt.
This is the third time we have debated this, and a lot of heat and light is being generated. I said earlier in the Chamber during Questions that, in my opinion, Ofcom is a fine regulator doing a fine job of implementing the Online Safety Act. Regulation we do well in this country; I know that sounds like heresy. It may sound like heresy to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but I remind him that I never dallied with socialism, not even at university or at school. As a true Conservative, I am entitled to say that regulation can be a good thing. We can pass this amendment and bring in proper regulation with a good regulator such as Ofcom. That is an important point.
I also to a certain extent want to admonish my own side, the side devoted to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and everything she is doing. I accept that big tech has a seat at the table, but, from my own experience as a Minister, I know that one has to navigate a difficult course between the different competing interests when they clash: creative industries, big tech and so on.
I say with great care that I do not think it is right to undermine the motives of people who are working very closely with this Government to achieve the right solution. I think I know to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was referring as the investor who advises the Government. As far as I am concerned, he has devoted a great deal of time not just to this Government but to the previous Government in wanting to do what is right, which is to keep Britain at the forefront of AI innovation. I simply want to put that comment on the record.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said last time, the Minister will be pleased to hear, but there are one or two things that have arisen today which I wish to address. We were told by the Minister that the Government’s view is that we might be in danger of privileging one section of the creative industries as against another, or one section of the community that is likely to be affected by AI. However, copyright underlines everything. It is universal. If you are talking about film, television, a work of literature or anything else, copyright is the essential ingredient.
On the issue of going in small parts, with one thing leading to another, I want to mention something that happened a few years ago and that we are still trying to deal with. Before Brexit, I and others made the point to the Government that it was going to cause a serious problem for touring musicians and artists. Boris Johnson’s Government said, “We can see that; we’re not going to let it happen”. Well, we have been trying to sort it out ever since. My point is simply this: getting small issues right is incredibly important because, further down the line, they become massive. That is why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to keep pushing. Like many other noble Lords here, I am very concerned about ping-pong—especially when we seem to be frustrating the mandated Chamber—but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, once said to me, there are sometimes issues where you just have to stand firm for as long as possible. I believe that this is one of them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is my first time speaking on this Bill, so the Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that I am not able to repeat comments I have previously made. I have followed the debates on it closely and followed, with great admiration, the campaign led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just in this Chamber but far beyond it.
This has never been a question of party politics. Indeed, it is striking that the initiative here has been led from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches in both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, just pointed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has led the charge. She has put her case clearly and been extremely reasonable and patient in the face of answers even more frustrating than those I used to give her when I was at the government Dispatch Box. More than that, she has been proactive in seeking solutions. The morning after her victory in the last round of ping-pong, she was up early to welcome to your Lordships’ House academics, policymakers and practitioners from not just the creative industries but the AI sector as part of the University of Oxford’s consultation on copyright and AI, as she mentioned in her opening remarks.
The Government keep making this sound like it is a binary choice between two competing sectors. It is not. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey just reminded us, responsible innovators from the AI sector know how vital design and creativity are to all parts of our economy, as well as to our society. They do not want to base their businesses on the theft of others’ intellectual property, paternity rights, maternity rights, pension rights and so much more, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It was announced last week that Taylor Swift had succeeded in buying back the rights to her first six albums, after many years of legal wrangling, for a nine-figure sum. It would be a cruel irony for her to have expended all that time and money only for her brilliant work to be stolen and fed into a large language model with no transparency and no accountability.
The creative industries have spoken with one voice on this—something that is rather unique—but well they might, for this is existential to them. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the many noble Lords who have joined her in the Division Lobbies in the previous rounds of ping-pong to express their concerns about this issue. They have not engaged on the point of substance behind her amendments but have relied on arguments of process. There is nothing in the noble Baroness’s latest amendment in lieu—her third attempt to offer a solution to the Government—that engages the financial privilege of another place.
I hope we will hear more from the Minister on the substance of the argument and on the substance of this new amendment, rather than an attempt to run down the clock or to hide behind process. I hope we might yet, even at this late stage, get a glimmer of the compromise that the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Brennan of Canton, and others have hoped for. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships’ House respects the will of the elected one, of course. But it would not be a constitutional crisis, as the Minister put it in the closing words of her opening remarks, for noble Lords to continue to express their concerns about this Bill, because that convention relies on the Government engaging faithfully and relying not just on points of process but on points of substance.
At a time when the Government are seeking to weaken the scrutiny functions of your Lordships’ House by removing almost 90 Members—all but three of whom are from outwith their own Benches—they need to treat your Lordships’ House with a bit more respect if they want those conventions to be adhered to. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the third round of ping-pong on this Bill. These issues have been extensively debated across Committee, Report and ping-pong. A cross-section of Back-Benchers has spoken, and now I invite Front-Benchers to speak.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I have spent a delightful half an hour or so listening to some very pertinent, brief speeches, and I intend, with the leave of the House, to make my own. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for helping to stand up for my professional interests and those of my family and the 2.4 million people who earn their livings, livelihoods, pensions and retirements from their creative efforts. She is doing us a great service and I am very grateful to her for that.
There is an issue of constitutional rights here: how long do we go on with ping-pong? I have said before that the elected Government of course have the right to get their business through. But those rights also come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities, above all, include at least listening to this House when it expresses a view so consistently, so coherently and on so many occasions. I do not believe that the Government have given the appearance of listening to any of what has gone on here. It is not that difficult; husbands all around the country give the appearance of listening, even in the middle of watching football matches. The Government here have not even done the basic business of saying, “Yes, I understand, and we are listening”.
The last time we discussed this, I thought it was unfortunate, if not unfair, for the Government to imply that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had turned down meetings with Ministers. That was unnecessary. It should not have been said, because that has nothing to do with the importance of her remarks. It is also deeply unhelpful when we in this House find ourselves having to come back, time and again, simply to ask the Government to listen, to offer coherent responses and not simply to dismiss what has been said here. What is this Chamber for if, after the debates we have had, the Government give absolutely nothing? They do not listen to this House or to Elton John, Paul McCartney or any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in this industry who are saying, “Please, just do a little bit to show that you have understood the issue”.
I have been accused in the past of having a vivid imagination, but I wonder why this Government are so blatantly stubborn over this. If I were writing a novel, I would wonder what went on in Washington while we were doing that trade deal that was so trumpeted by this Government. Were any conversations going on behind the scenes that gave guarantees, commitments or understandings about what approach this Government would take to copyright and AI? We know that Elon Musk, who was a very powerful man in the White House, wanted the Government’s position and not the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is taking.
Over the past few days, this side of the House has been accused by government Members of making arguments that were made in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. That was pretty shameful. It has nothing to do with this issue, although it did make me think: are we actually looking here at a digital Munich and bending the knee to a power with which we wanted to do a deal through backdoor agreements? Can the Minister please give us an absolute guarantee that no such behind-the-scenes, unannounced undertakings have been given? Otherwise, I fail to understand why this Government are being so stubborn.
In light of the fact that the Government have a right to get their business through— but they also have responsibilities, as we have responsibilities to stand up for what we believe to be entirely obviously correct—I will intend gladly and enthusiastically once again, if the noble Baroness pushes the issue, to march into the voting Lobbies with her on this issue.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am goaded by my own Front Bench to speak for the second time in favour of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
I have been a Minister in both Houses. I have been on the receiving end of ping-pong in both Houses, and I got bloody irritated by it. But I was never in a position, along with my Secretary of State, of sending back nothing. We sought to get a compromise. I can remember back to the late 1990s: the Labour Front Bench was sent by John Smith to Templeton College in Oxford to get some training. I can remember a former senior civil servant saying to us, “Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. That is the position we are in now. We can avoid making a bad decision by having a degree of compromise, which has been missing throughout.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, may I also trespass on your patience? I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, live on my royalties. The AI companies have—very irritatingly—bought only one of my 20 books; they paid about £3,000, and so, as you can imagine, I am very keen that they should buy the other 19.
It strikes me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to organise a register system or licence system—it has only just happened in the United States, with regard to Amazon buying out New York Times back copies—whereby there is no threat or danger of republication but all that is happening is the information is mined by these companies. Such a system surely can and should happen.
The reason I am supporting the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that at the very least it will embarrass future Secretaries of State when they have to come to the House and essentially admit they have undermined one of the great British inventions. For 300 years, the law of copyright has been helping and driving creativity in this country.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which introduces Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D.
It is absolutely clear that the noble Baroness’s speeches become better and more convincing the more we go on. Indeed, the arguments being made today for these amendments become better and more convincing as time goes on. I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.
Time and time again, we all have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper and repeated by Ministers suggesting there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing UK copyright law regarding AI training. We have heard that the Secretary of State has just recently acknowledged that the existing copyright law is “very certain”, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, he has also stated that
“it is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1234.]
That makes the narrative even worse than saying that copyright law is uncertain.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has rightly asserted, we do not need to change copyright law. It is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not a deficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also profoundly put it—I have got a number of speeches to draw on, as you can see—what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The core problem is a lack of transparency from AI developers: without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, creators and rights holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate licensing or legal action.
In striking down previous Lords amendments, the Government have suggested that this House was at fault for using the wrong Bill. They have repeatedly claimed that it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing, and they have asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise one sector over another. But that is exactly what the Government are doing. They have suggested an expert working group, an economic impact assessment, a report on the use of copyright, and then, I think, a report on progress in what the noble Baroness the Minister had to say. But, as many noble Lords have said today, none of that gives us the legislative assurance —the certainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, put it—that we need in these circumstances.
The Government have objected to being asked to introduce regulations because of financial privilege, and now, it seems—I can anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say—are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill with this amendment. But the Government are perfectly at liberty to bring forward their own amendment allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported. Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning licensing market, promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industries, and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contributes value to AI models.
The Government have asked for a degree of trust for their plans. This amendment, while perhaps less than creators deserve—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described it as the bare minimum—is a step that would help earn that trust. It is this Government who can do that, and I urge them to heed the words of their own Back-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Rooker and Lord Brennan, all asked the Government to find a compromise.
I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the Government, to support Motion A1.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.
However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I must once again thank all noble Lords who have spoken during this debate, and of course I continue to recognise the passion and the depth of feeling on this issue.
I did not think I needed to reiterate this, but we absolutely believe in the importance of the creative sector, and of course we want it to have a flourishing future. In previous debates, I have spelled out all the work that we are doing with the creative sector and how fundamental it is to our economic planning going forward. I do not intend to go over that, but I have said it time and again from this Dispatch Box. Our intention is to find a substantial and workable solution to this challenge that we are all facing.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others that we have had numerous discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have of course taken those discussions seriously. As a result, we have come today with an honest and committed plan to work together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright both quickly and effectively.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others? Why, if the Government are working and looking for a compromise, have they sent this back to the House without any proposal from the Government?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when I set out my comments, I said that I have made compromises, and I will reiterate them. We are trying to find a way through on the detail of how we are going to find something that is workable and deliverable in the longer term. That is the real challenge here. We all agree that we need to find something that will support the creative sector. It is about finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge, and that is what we are attempting to do.
I think noble Lords feel that it is simpler than it is, because this is a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not just think that there is a simple solution; I do not think for one second that there is.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she accept that in order for these discussions to be fruitful in the round table and workshops that the Government have proposed, all parties need to know that they are entering those discussions on an equal footing? Although the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State have made quite a lot of play about not wanting to favour one side or another, through the consultation process and the way in which the Government have demonstrated a favouritism to one side of that discussion, there is a lack of confidence within the creative sector about their entering into these negotiations. That is what is lacking and what is needed to get those discussions to the point where they can be constructive and deliver the solution—which, I agree with her, will be very difficult to achieve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department have made it absolutely clear how vital it is that the creative sector’s interests are protected in the discussions. The sector will be part of the working groups, have a seat at the table and have its voice heard. We have a job to do in reassuring those people that this is a workable solution, but they will see that the long-term workable solution which we are attempting to achieve would be for everyone.
Those working groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative industries as well as the tech sector. Those working groups, alongside the consultation responses, will inform the reports, the proposal and the economic assessment that the Government have already committed to in this Bill. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed upon and implemented. However, we must see what comes out of the process, rather than imposing preconditions at this stage.
As I said earlier, His Majesty’s Government have made three additional commitments on this matter. First, these reports will be expanded with two additional topics—extraterritoriality and enforcement. Secondly, the report’s proposals and economic impact assessment will be published more quickly—within nine months. Thirdly, if we have not completed these reports within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament.
Turning to the first proposed new subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models, and the impact of such use on copyright owners, AI developers and the wider economy should all be considered as we develop our policy approach and put forward our proposals, as should the adequacy of the legislative framework to support copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm that these aspects will already be considered as part of the impact assessment. The Government will report as we go along and are committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives clarity to noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government agree that these issues are important and are actively working on them. We disagree with this part of the noble Baroness’s amendment only on the basis that an additional statement is not needed.
However, turning to the second proposed new subsection of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can see the appeal of requiring the Government to make progress with legislation in this space. The Government have heard noble Lords’ concerns about the pace of progress. The Secretary of State said in the other place that he proposes legislation to be tabled as soon as possible. He has set out a plan for determining what such legislation should contain, assessing the consultation responses, convening technical working groups and then producing reports and economic impact assessments on our proposals.
Many of the things in the noble Baroness’s amendment may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt the process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. What would noble Lords say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation—that their considered thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? What to the working groups of technical experts that, rather than work with us to come up with a comprehensive solution that works for all sides, must abide by regulations that ignore their input and cover only one or two issues? What to the elected House, which has already voted these amendments down three times? Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, before the recess, do we believe in consulting and properly legislating, but just not today?
This cannot be what anybody thinks is right, either on this issue or indeed as a matter of principle. I repeat: the Government have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House and set out their plan to address them. This must be allowed to run its course. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness’s new amendment. Doing so will further delay our plan for dealing with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that this Bill will do; for example, allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK; providing for data preservation notices for coroners to support bereaved parents; introducing new offences tackling intimate image deepfake abuse; and enabling digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy. All these things are waiting in the wings once the data Bill is passed.
I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this. We are making compromises—indeed, we have made a compromise—and we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which we do not feel will give us the comprehensive and detailed solution that we know is necessary to reassure the creative and technology sectors in the UK that we can make this work.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I first thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who thinks that I have won. I therefore hope that he expects and anticipates that one of my amendments will make it into the Bill, because that is what winning looks like to me.
I want to make a broader point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I know that the Minister has told the House to be very careful about how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that, in private, I have reached out to all sides of the Government to discuss this and to try to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned—which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change—are not something that the Government came to me with before the debate; this was the first that I heard of them. That is probably because she knows that they are not profound or significant.
I wish that the Minister had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear—I hope my words were clear; I will re-read Hansard—that stealing is happening, and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument that I have made; I have been very careful in making it. As many people around the House have said on the previous amendment, the Government cannot have it both ways. They do not like the drafting, but they do not draft anything else; they do not like the comprehensive one, but this one is not comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round—the Government are forcing ping-pong on us. My real wish is that the Government find some strength, some humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was a power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. That was a good amendment. That is the amendment that the Government should be backing. Today’s amendment is a “just in case”.
The Government should not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They would be very happy if the Government acted now. That is not a problem, and I am willing to take that, but the Government have offered no timeline. They have proposed voluntary systems, while the longer issue will continue; they have said “as soon as we can”. I do not doubt that every Minister has in their heart the right motivation—let me say that on the record—but the actions of the Government are blocking an entire industry from protecting their property. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I appear to have this socialist inclination that people should have a fair day’s pay for their labour. I seek the agreement of the House.
Independent Sentencing Review
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the measures announced by the Government on 22 May are presented under the guise of necessity, but they risk eroding public confidence in our criminal justice system. This country has always stood for a system of justice that is firm and fair and can be trusted by the public, yet some of the proposals fall short of that standard. If the Government are truly committed to ensuring that violent and repeat offenders are properly punished, it is entirely within their means to create the prison capacity required. Instead, we are asked to accept a series of deeply troubling changes on the grounds that there is no alternative.
What do these reforms entail? It is a reduction in time served, including a proposal for many offenders to spend merely a third of their sentence in custody. Let us consider just one example. A burglar sentenced to 18 months and entering a plea of guilty might serve just 11 weeks in prison. That is scarcely credible as a deterrent, let alone for a justice system. Such outcomes can only erode confidence in our penal system. And what is to replace custodial punishment? We have heard of an expanded use of electronic tagging. While we support the appropriate use of technology, let us be candid: electronic tags are not a substitute for custody.
As mentioned by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in the other place, the Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme showed that 71% of tagged individuals breached their curfew. Is that the kind of protection that we are offering a law-abiding public? Meanwhile, over 17,000 individuals are currently on remand awaiting trial, a number that is forecast to rise still further. In the light of this, will the Government now act on the Lady Chief Justice’s call for additional court sitting days so that these cases can be heard and justice delivered without undue delay?
What of capacity? Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. The Government’s prison capacity strategy mentions the construction of a mere 250 rapid deployment cells. That is hardly adequate. When Texas undertook similar reforms in the 1990s—the very model on which this plan is said to be based—it built more than 75,000 prison places.
The Government’s present approach to justice simply cannot inspire public confidence. We must ensure, and indeed the public expect, that the most prolific and dangerous offenders face the consequences of their actions, so I will press the Minister on several critical points. First, following the announcements made in the other place on 22 May, can he confirm without equivocation that violent sexual offenders and those who have committed crimes against children will be excluded from the early release schemes?
Secondly, given the review’s emphasis on reducing custodial sentences, what assurances can the Government provide that public confidence in the justice system, particularly among victims and their families, will not be undermined by these changes?
Thirdly, does the Minister agreed that electronic tagging cannot substitute for secure custody, particularly in cases involving violent or high-risk offenders?
Fourthly, what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of our prisons in light of the sentencing proposals, and will they commit to a robust and credible prison building programme that reflects the scale of these proposed reforms?
Finally, it is deeply regrettable that the voices of victims and their families appear to have been overlooked in this review. Can the Minister clarify why the Independent Sentencing Review appears to have taken such limited input from victims’ groups? Will the Government commit to a public consultation to ensure their voices are heard before implementing these recommendations?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, we welcome the Independent Sentencing Review. We also applaud the appointment of David Gauke to lead it. He was an inspired and independent choice and, despite some reservations with the report, we regard the tenor of the review as brave, principled and, most importantly, evidence based.
We also agree with the Government in their Statement that the previous Administration are largely responsible for the crisis in our prisons—our running out of prison space, the dilapidation of our prison estate, the ineffective approach to rehabilitation, to community sentences and to the Probation Service, and the continuing pervasive recidivism. These are the factors that got us into this mess, and they are largely the previous Government’s fault. The irony is that the previous Government claimed to be dedicated to law and order, just as the noble and learned Lord does now. Well, that is not their legacy.
Given the present position, on present trends and given the prison building plans—they are extensive, but there will inevitably be delays in their implementation—can the Government realistically hope to avoid the kind of stopgap emergency responses that we have found necessary over the last year?
Moving on, the proposals for three-part prison sentences and an earned progression model are persuasive. It is interesting that they originated in Texas—not a state known for soft liberalism. My understanding is that the Texan Government believed that these crime reduction measures would save the taxpayers’ dollar. Have the Government yet estimated the possible cost savings from these proposals overall?
We agree that we desperately need the increased investment in probation and probably even more investment. We regard the commitment to more tagging and community monitoring as clearly sensible. But I would be grateful if the Minister could say how far it is envisaged that tagged offenders will be confined to their homes, and what plans there are for work, education and training for offenders while they are tagged and under supervision.
Capping recalls to prison should prevent the use of recall to respond to relatively minor breaches of conditions with extended and disproportionate prison terms, but how will the individual length of these short recalls be determined? We on these Benches, along with the majority of experts in the field, have been arguing for years for a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, and I can see the argument for leaving some judicial discretion in place in certain circumstances. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nodding, and I know that he has had experience of short sentencing in his time as a magistrate. But we also agree that victims of domestic abusers and stalkers, and cases of breaches of protection orders, call for particular protection for victims. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance that, in practice, this reform will give the presumption against short sentences that we have long been seeking?
We accept the argument for making community sentences tougher and for intensive supervision courts, but we seek an assurance that the primary purpose of community sentences will continue to be to rehabilitate offenders and enable them to turn their lives around. We have concerns about the pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal, with its rather troubling overtones of chemical castration. Will the Government commit to careful monitoring of the long-term effects of such treatment?
Finally, we share the Government’s commitment to supporting victims, and that shines through this Statement. My noble friend Lady Brinton has been at the forefront of securing more compassionate treatment of victims, and the exclusion zones proposed will be an important new protection. But may we also have a commitment to making the criminal justice system more approachable and less traumatic for victims, particularly in cases of sexual violence? We have had some progress in this area but not nearly enough, hence the loss of so many cases. That would be a helpful complement for the Government’s principled commitment to ensure that women are less often sent to prison, and that women defendants are more compassionately treated by the criminal justice system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, when this Government asked David Gauke and his independent expert panel to conduct a review of sentencing, its task was clear: our country must never run out of prison places again. I put on record my appreciation for all the panel’s work, including that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who is well known and respected in this place.
In considering its proposals, the Independent Sentencing Review has followed the evidence and looked at examples of good practice across the world. It is clear to me, as someone who has been searching for answers to these well-known problems for over 20 years, that the panel has carefully and methodically approached the challenges head-on. This review sets out major reform. It is an important moment for the justice sector, and one we cannot afford to ignore.
As the Lord Chancellor has set out, once again our prisons are running out of space. Let me be clear that we must always have space in our prisons for dangerous offenders. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for prison places will still outstrip supply by 9,500 cells in early 2028. If our prisons collapse, courts must suspend trials, police must halt arrests and crime goes unpunished; we face the total breakdown of law and order in this country. Yet the previous Government, over 14 years, added just 500 places to our prison estate. At the same time, sentence lengths rose. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis.
That starts by building prisons. Since taking office just 11 months ago, this Government have opened 2,400 places. Last month, the Lord Chancellor announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031. This is the largest expansion since the Victorian era. However, the investment is vital, but it is still not sufficient. We need to do more. We cannot just build our way out of this crisis. This Government have been clear: we also need to both reform sentencing and end the cycle of reoffending.
The report’s central recommendation—the move to a three-part sentence called the “earned progression model”—means that offenders will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release point will be at the one-third mark, with additional time added for bad behaviour. For those serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release point will be at 50%, with additional time added for bad behaviour. If they follow prison rules and behave well, they will earn an earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. It is that simple.
That behaviour-based approach echoes the model that the Lord Chancellor witnessed in Texas. I have personally been fascinated by the Texan model for a number of years and have followed the outcomes achieved very closely, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, clearly has as well. If you are a prison geek like me, this is what you seek: examples of what works—and it clearly does work. Its reforms, which started in 2007, have led to 16 prisons closing, to fewer victims and to lower costs of reoffending.
To address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about these reforms applying to dangerous offenders, I assure noble Lords that these reforms will not apply to those serving extended determinate sentences, which includes the most dangerous offenders. I confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences or state threat sentences will be eligible for early release from prison. I can also confirm that the Government engaged with police colleagues and other stakeholders across the criminal justice system prior to the publication of the review, as did David Gauke. We wanted to ensure that we had a joined-up approach. The full detail of these policies, including an impact assessment, will accompany the forthcoming legislation.
Noble Lords have rightly raised questions about what these reforms will mean for victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse. My priority is clear: everything we do is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. Our first responsibility is to make sure that this does not happen, which is why we consulted widely, as has David Gauke, with victims’ groups.
The review recommends several important measures, including the way we identify domestic abusers at sentencing so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. We recognise how vital it is to make sure that we know who all domestic abuse offenders are, even when their offences are not obviously linked to domestic abuse. We also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts. I also clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the review did not recommend entirely abolishing short sentences. Under our proposed reforms, judges will retain the discretion to hand down short custodial sentences in exceptional circumstances, and I note that David Gauke’s review specifically references this, including giving respite to victims of domestic abuse.
To improve transparency in the system, we will also extend the provision of free sentencing remark transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. All these are necessary steps that I believe show that this Government have recognised the unique harms caused by violence against women and girls. Further steps will be outlined when, in the summer, we publish our 10-year cross-government strategy on violence against women and girls.
Noble Lords raised important questions about public protection and the role of probation. The Government recognise probation’s important role. In fact, it is more than important; it is vital. That is why we are increasing funding for probation by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review—an increase of 45%. That will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders, which the evidence has shown cuts crime and makes our streets safer.
If we are to see more punishment in the community, it is essential that it works. That is why we are looking at new severe financial penalties that would see offenders’ assets seized even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expand the use of punishments, such as travel and driving bans, that would curtail an offender’s liberty.
I particularly draw noble Lords’ attention to the recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. These impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, with offenders regularly brought before a judge to monitor their compliance. If they do not play ball, the offenders get sent straight to prison. Intensive supervision courts work, especially with prolific offenders. Visiting the court in Birmingham remains the best day I have had in this job—I saw how it helps turn lives away from crime.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to David Gauke’s recommendations relating to female offenders. My interest in prison started many years ago, when coming face to face with the realities of many women in our prisons. Too many women are victims of considerable trauma and abuse. They are vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many are also mothers, and their imprisonment has life-changing impacts not only for them but for their children. Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences, and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which we set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. I am pleased to note that the review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.
I will inform noble Lords about some of the other areas of our focus to address the capacity crisis. The number of offenders recalled to prison has doubled since 2018, putting increasing pressure on the system. Today’s figure is around 13,000. The sentencing review makes sensible recommendations to address this increase, and it is suggested that, where offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle and will set out the precise details of these changes when we legislate.
In conclusion, in our response to the sentencing review, this Government will take the steps necessary to end the enduring capacity crisis we inherited and end the cycle of reoffending. To do that, we must agree with others that we have to build prisons on a historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever and speed up our courts. But we also must reform sentencing in a way that puts the justice system on a more sustainable footing. We now have the right ideas, the long-term funding and a Government determined to resolve this long-term crisis for good. I invite noble Lords to engage with me as we pursue this much-needed reform.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me some advance indication of the proposals in the government Statement, but does he not agree that sentences of imprisonment, including short sentences, are almost invariably imposed by the courts only as a matter of last resort? Is it not the case that, by seeking to curtail the use of short sentences of imprisonment, the Government risk frustrating and demoralising the magistrates who perform such outstanding public service and exacerbating the increase in crime, which the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and others have said will be an inevitable consequence of the Government’s proposals?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
To be clear, courts will retain discretion to impose short custodial sentences for offenders who have breached a court order. So 12 months or fewer is not banned; it is in exceptional circumstances, including the breach of any VAWG-related protective order—for example, restraining orders, non-molestation orders and stalking protection orders. But courts will also be able to impose a sentence of immediate custody when there are exceptional circumstances that would not justify passing a suspended sentence. A large amount of evidence suggests that reoffending levels are higher for people who go to prison on short sentences than for those who serve tough community sentences instead.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support the Gauke review, which tries to address two major problems that have caused our prison population to get out of control. One of those is increased sentencing. I cannot remember a political party represented here today that has promised in any election that it would reduce sentences. They have all competed to give high sentences, and I am not sure that it has had the effect desired—of course, with some offences. The second is obviously the decrease in the amount of parole available. This review attempts to do something about the latter, and I broadly support it.
I wonder whether the Minister will agree with me on three points about which I am concerned. I agree partly with the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I know that the Government have proposed to entirely remove the shorter sentences, but they should be really careful which ones they entirely remove. More important is the phasing of this: how would those people come out, in what groups and in what numbers?
That links to the second point, about policing and probation resources. I agree with the Government increasing probation spending, but it will not all be spent at once and people will not all arrive experienced and able. How do we match those two things so that the police and probation are prepared effectively for that mass release?
Finally, there is a real opportunity here. I agree with tagging. To those who say that people commit offences with tagging, I would say that, in general, they commit fewer offences. If the tagging is linked to their offending behaviour, such as with sobriety, and if it can limit where they go and do not go, it can have an effect. At the moment, those tags go to a commercial company and not directly to the police service. Surely the time has come to create a separate body to monitor those tags and react immediately when there are breaches. I am not convinced that that happens at the moment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the general direction of travel of the sentencing review. We will continue to work with the police and others on any impacts on the wider justice system—that is very important. However, the alternative is that we run out of prison places, and the last thing that our police want or need is to have no prison places. It is very important that we make sure that we have enough prison places to rely on, so that, in future, the police have confidence that they can go about their job.
As for the short custodial sentences, MoJ research found that custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates compared to court orders of any length. That is why we need to make sure that we get the balance right. Tagging has recently been shown to cut reoffending rates by 20%, but what is also interesting is the future of tagging. With the way in which technology is developing, I envisage that the role of tagging and wrist-worn technology will mean that the role of probation becomes far easier and we can do far more, not just to track offenders in the community but to check whether they are consuming alcohol or drugs or whether they are in the wrong place, and so on. With electronic tagging, we need to make sure that we support our probation staff, but I am very interested in the future of the technology too.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
It is particularly welcome that the Government have accepted that community sentences are far more effective at reducing reoffending than are short sentences. Will the Minister accept that, if we want to further improve the levels of reoffending and increase public confidence, a community sentence programme will need to have far more investment than the very welcome £700 million for the Probation Service? Can he assure us that funds will also be made available for support services such as for housing, mental health, and drug and alcohol and gambling problems? Will that money be forthcoming?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right that housing is a key factor in the potential for someone to reoffend and go back to prison. We need to make sure that, when people leave prison, they do not have the initials NFA against their name, because they need somewhere to live.
On community sentences, there are very good examples of effective alternatives. For example, community sentence treatment requirements tackle the root causes of offending, and recipients of mental health treatment requirements were 9 percentage points less likely to reoffend compared to those on short custodial sentences. The £700 million of extra funding is absolutely vital, and will go an awful long way to making sure that we can deliver the service that our hard-working probation staff need. They know exactly what to do, but they have often been restricted in what opportunities they have. I am very determined to make sure that, when we offer community services, they are sentences that work, so that when people start on them they then go on to live a crime-free life.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it correct that in the United Kingdom we have the highest rate of incarceration in Europe and are exceeded only by the United States? When did officials at the offender management units at MoJ realise that we were definitely going to run out of prison places? Was it in this Parliament or was it at some point in the previous Parliament? Finally, is there any hope that the Minister will make some noticeable reform to our custodial system?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The amount of prison places that we will be building will mean that there are even more people in prison than ever before. We will build 14,000 places by 2031, which will mean that there is a large amount more space for offenders to go in. On the day I arrived in the Ministry of Justice, I had thought that it would be a day of celebration and that I would be home within an hour, but I was there for about six hours, meeting officials who were clearly concerned that we were about to run out of space, again. That is why I am delighted that David Gauke’s review has been presented to Parliament. We need to make sure that it works together with the review that Brian Leveson is carrying out, which I hope will be published soon. It is not one or the other; both are needed, as well as the investment in building new prison places to resolve the crisis that we have. It is really important to me that this is the last time we have a crisis. We need to make sure that we have a long-term and sustainable prison system.
Lord Bach (Lab)
From these Benches, first, I congratulate the Minister in particular for the difference that he has made in his time at the Ministry of Justice. It has been a breath of fresh air, and it is about time that a Government of either party or all parties have the courage to take on this issue. Of course, the danger for a party in taking on this issue is that the other party or parties will immediately seize on it and use it for populist effect. That has to stop—it has gone on for too long and it ruins the system.
What I am particularly concerned about is the Probation Service, because how it has been treated in the past few years is, frankly, scandalous. It has been run down and has not been able to do the very difficult and vital job that it is there to do. Can the Minister ensure, please, that the Probation Service, which is at the heart of this change if it is to be successful, is properly funded and given every support—all the support that it has lacked for so many years?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. It has been the biggest privilege of my life to be given this role, and to be in your Lordships’ House to debate these crucial reforms to sentencing. I have been involved in and around the sector for most of my working life, and I have seen too many great ideas get ignored, too many wither on the vine and too many go unfunded.
I counted up the number of Prison Ministers I had met before being handed the keys to what was once their office, and it was 14, over just 20 years. I am not sure whether that happened because they enjoyed the role so much that they wanted to move on to another one or because it was too challenging and they wanted to find an easier role elsewhere, but, for me, this is the job that I have come in to do, and I am absolutely delighted that David Gauke and the panel have come up with the ideas that they have.
My noble friend is 100% right about the Probation Service. That is where the heavy lifting is done, and it is at the heart of the system. If you do not get probation funded and operating properly, the rest does not work either. I have met so many amazing probation staff who know exactly what they need to do but feel that they have not been supported enough over the years and that they spend too much time on administration and not enough time face to face with offenders, helping them turn their lives around—and that is the job that they signed up to do.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I very strongly agree with what the Minister has just said, and I declare an interest in that a close relative of mine works in the Probation Service. It is demoralised, underfunded and depressed, and that will have to change urgently, although, of course, getting probation officers into positions of experience takes time.
I strongly welcome this report and its findings. Does the Minister agree that of all the statistics bandied around on the topic of reoffending, perhaps the most striking is that no less than 39.3% of inmates reoffend within 12 months of their release from custody? That is the point at which the intensive provision part of the three-stage system will kick in. The period when those prisoners who are most at risk of reoffending are being engaged with by the Probation Service and by rehabilitation services will be key to this working, and if that is not got right, the reform will not be got right. As the Minister says, the Probation Service is central to this. Is he confident that he is going to be able to secure sufficient funds to create the sort of transformation that will be required for this scheme to work?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am learning how this business works, and when you go to the Treasury, you ask for what you want and then, in our case, we are happy with what we need to do the job. The £700 million is significant and will make a difference, but on top of that, we need to recruit more probation staff, which we are doing. We need to train them really well, and we are doing a review into training. We also need to support them, because the noble Lord is right: 39% of people reoffending is far too high and means more victims as well.
One of the things I learned is that employment makes a huge difference to people when they leave prison. One of the things I tried to do was to interview people when they were in prison, so they started working for me the next day. When I started employment advisory boards, 14% of prisoners had a job after six months. With the work of so many local business leaders and the third sector, that figure is now well over 30%. Those people in a job are far less likely to reoffend.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the publication of the review. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester regrets that she is not able to be in her place today, but I know that she has been raising many of the issues addressed in this review over several years. It is heartening that the review has looked at creative alternatives to prison that are rigorous and yet also address the root causes of people committing crimes in the first place, and has proposed effective ways of preventing people entering cycles of criminality and reoffending, as well as strengthening and protecting communities, which is in the interest of victims on all sides.
I have no doubt that my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester will want to continue to engage with the Minister and others as the Government respond to the review. But what role does the Minister believe the third sector, including faith groups, might continue to play in light of the review’s recommendation to expand the support offered by the third sector to offenders on community sentences and on licence?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has been very vocal and supportive of many of the suggestions I have been working on, not just now but before I came into this position. The role of the third sector, both in prison and in the community, is vital. One thing that has been missed is that the spending review now being a three-year deal makes a big difference to third-sector partners, who find it very difficult to rely on a one-year cycle. I am hoping that the relationships we have built up over many years will now be far more confident relationships, both ways, because third-sector partners will be able to have confidence and a longer-term view of their commitment to working with us.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister used the word “compassionate”, and other noble Lords have used that word in reference to sentencing, particularly of women, and to the effect on their families. Does he appreciate that many people do not understand how, for a simple tweet—an appalling tweet—Lucy Connolly got 31 months, while the next month, somebody who raped a young woman was sentenced to half that time?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is up to the judiciary to decide what sentence they hand down to offenders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too add to the welcome that has been given to David Gauke’s review and the Government’s response to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he said, “Let us try to approach this in a non-political manner”, but I fear that is probably pie in the sky. I shall put it in a slightly different way: can we try to approach this by seeing what works? Do these long prison sentences work? My own view is that they do not. As important to these reforms will be making sure that the substitute, of people spending more time in the community, works. Here, money is critical. I very much hope that the Government will be prepared to submit their detailed costings for critical examination, because we cannot afford to get this wrong.
There are three areas that concern me. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that in this electronic age, tagging should be efficient. I do not want to say much about the companies that have been used, but they have a fairly dubious history in some respects. Secondly, we ought to be very careful in how we deal with people who offend. When we tried this 20 years ago, that was the problem: if someone broke the conditions, we were too slow at doing anything about it; therefore, that needs funds. Thirdly, can we ensure that there is proper money for the Probation Service, and that that is examined critically? All of those are critical to the point that has been made—how do we have confidence in the community?
I remember going up north as a youngish judge and being told, when I advocated community sentence, “Young man,”—I was, I think, relatively young then— “we don’t believe in it up here”. We have to make them believe in it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My approach to this job is exactly my approach to all my working life: follow the evidence and make sure you get some great people working with you who have a very clear idea of what needs to be achieved. That is my plan here. That is why, for example, Texas provides an interesting example; the evidence is clear, and I am delighted that we have taken it on board. The point within that is the incentives: what incentives does a prisoner have to do what we ask them to do? If they behave badly, they get time added on to their sentence, so it is a good example of following the evidence.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I sat as a magistrate for some 10 years and remain on the supplemental list. I have to say that it is a grave mistake to take away the ability, as a norm, to give out small and shorter sentences, for the simple reason that we magistrates did so to keep bad people away from good people. It is as simple as that. Is the problem not more what is happening within our prison estate? People who may be drug-free are going into the prison estate and getting a drug habit while there. That in itself is a cause for not just some concern but grave concern, and I am not surprised that they then come out to a life of criminality thereafter. Surely, that has to be the primary concern of the Minister. In so saying, I pay tribute to his family’s support for those on the prison estate, which has been truly exceptional over many years.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Drugs are a problem in every prison, and the addiction that people come into prison with is often exacerbated by serious organised criminals who make money out of selling drugs to addicted people. This then turns into violence and debt, and the ongoing problems we have in prisons. I want people to be in prison to turn their lives around, not to go out and commit further crime. Drugs is a massive problem, and that is why an awful lot of my time is spent finding ways to tackle drugs. It is not just about stopping drones coming in, which noble Lords are aware is a big problem; it is also about the hard yards done by health staff, supporting people with addiction, so that when they come out, they are off drugs and want to lead a normal, healthy life. We then create no victims.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 2nd June 2025
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 May 2025 - large print - (12 May 2025)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the debate on this important Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords in seeking to speak. This is a key Bill for the Government and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I will set out why this Government have brought forward the Bill for the benefit of noble Lords today.
Immigration has always been an important part of the United Kingdom’s story. But for it to be so, it must be controlled and managed so that the system is fair and works for people in this country as a whole. Proper enforcement of and respect for the rules are key to that. The Bill before us addresses a number of those areas, and the recently published White Paper runs parallel to the Bill and covers a number of other areas.
The Bill is predominantly about the issues of illegal and irregular migration, and I think it is clear to noble Lords and any observer that the current situation cannot go on. Criminal gangs have had six years to take over the English Channel unchecked and to set up and run criminal enterprises that exploit people at their most vulnerable. As a result, there is a massive strain on the already overstretched immigration and asylum system supports. It is in nobody’s interest to continue as we are. The Bill seeks to make real change.
The criminal gangs have no respect for the lives of those they traffic. Often 50 people or more are crammed into unseaworthy vessels, sometimes facing threats and intimidation when they raise concerns. As a result, we have seen individuals tragically die in the channel. Make no mistake: this is part of a broader criminal enterprise, which seeks to bring weapons, drugs and a wide array of items used to carry out criminal activity into our local communities, smuggled into the United Kingdom. The Government are absolutely committed to taking down the gangs that risk the lives of so many people in our communities.
This Government are taking the necessary actions to secure our borders, to bring the immigration and asylum system under control and to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change. The Government are determined to tackle irregular migration, to bring control back to our borders and to stop the appalling loss of life in the channel. It is also important that alongside this we have a properly functioning asylum and immigration system that delivers timely decisions for individuals and makes sure that those with no right to be here are removed.
The legislation before us will strengthen the UK’s border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect UK border security that sees the Government working more closely with our international partners up stream and in our near neighbourhood, enhancing operational activity nationally and internationally and ensuring that our law enforcement and operational teams have the powers and tools they need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime activity.
What are the key measures in the Bill? First, the Bill places a new Border Security Commander and his role on a statutory footing and clearly explains the functions that will allow this role to be an enduring one that brings together the skills and expertise of a variety of agencies to tackle the issues faced, united behind a set of border security priorities.
Secondly, the Bill establishes landmark new offences, contained within the legislation, which will provide law enforcement agencies working across border security with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime. This should not be a surprise to noble Lords, because in the election almost a year ago the Labour Party stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce new counterterrorism-style powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening UK border security. This Bill will deliver the new offences.
Among the new offences is one to ensure that action is taken against those who endanger others during sea crossings to the UK. These crossings are exceptionally dangerous, and I regret the loss of life we have seen even this year. The Government are determined to prevent such loss of life in the channel with these new powers.
The Bill will also create new powers to seize and search electronic devices where there is suspicion of involvement in organised immigration crime activity. This will build a better picture for law enforcement agencies investigating the activity of gangs. The Bill will ensure that data-sharing capabilities will be expanded to assist in developing the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime and other threats, make it easier for public agencies to share information and enhance the ability to act. For example, measures to allow the DVLA to share trailer data and for HMRC to share customs data will enhance the work of Border Force.
The Bill’s biometric provisions will provide greater flexibility when taking biometrics from individuals who are part of a UK evacuation. They will allow for the provision of biometrics at ports in Scotland, fixing the situation that has developed where law enforcement officials are needing to drive to a police station to carry out this task.
Measures in the Bill also focus on serious and organised crime and make it clear that it will be an offence to possess the articles named in the Bill, which we know are used in criminality and which harm communities. There is also an expansion of the serious crime prevention order regime, introducing new interim orders which will allow law enforcement to act immediately to tackle criminality where it occurs.
The Bill will strengthen the immigration and asylum systems as a whole. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to end the wasteful migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda and use that funding to set up our new Border Security Command, led by Martin Hewitt.
Let me be completely clear: the Government’s plans in the previous Parliament to deal with Rwanda were wholly unworkable. They were going to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and would never have dealt with the sheer number of migrants we are seeing in the channel. Around £700 million has been spent to date, and it is time to close it down. Only four people left the United Kingdom under the Rwanda scheme, and they left voluntarily. The legislation before us, as a manifesto commitment, repeals the costly and unworkable measure introduced by the previous Government and introduces new provisions to start to address the real challenges faced, to tackle harm and to build a more efficient and robust asylum and immigration system.
Beyond the provisions that repeal the safety of Rwanda Act and huge swathes of the Illegal Migration Act, the Bill will equip the Immigration Services Commissioner with the tools they need to identify and tackle abuses within the immigration advice sector. Under the Bill, the Immigration Advice Authority will have new powers to fine or suspend those who provide poor-quality advice to those going through the immigration process, restoring trust in the system—I hope and believe—by tackling such poor practice.
In this extensive Bill, we are also introducing measures that aim to begin taking the action needed to ensure a properly functioning, effective immigration system. The Bill will introduce a new, 24-week statutory timeline for appeals as part of the Government’s work to tackle the enormous backlog of cases we have inherited. To assist cases to move through the system and to provide individuals with clarity on outcomes, cases where the individual is in asylum accommodation—at great taxpayer expense—and cases of non-detained foreign national offenders will be prioritised as far as practically possible.
The Bill also provides for greater protections against harm in our communities, supporting—as I know noble Lords will support—the removal of foreign national criminals and ensuring that sexual offences are treated with the seriousness they deserve. For example, those convicted of Schedule 3 offences will not benefit from refugee protections in the United Kingdom. We recognise the devastating impact that these offences have on victims and our communities, and we as a Government are determined that individuals who commit them cannot benefit from our protections.
Stronger conditions will be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal from the United Kingdom. These measures mean that those who do not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed due to obligations in law can have certain conditions placed upon them if they pose a threat to the public. This is another measure to try to keep our communities safer.
We are strengthening the detention powers available to the Home Office when an individual is subject to deportation on the basis that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. This measure removes ambiguity around when powers may be used.
Extending the right-to-work scheme to those who fall under other working relationships will crack down on those working illegally, many of whom are being exploited for cheap labour. It is an objective of the Government to try to drive down that cheap labour market, which is an underbelly in our communities at large.
Finally, changes to the EU settlement scheme, which will be welcomed by a number of noble Lords, will confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the beginning of this scheme; namely, to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the United Kingdom.
The main priority of the Bill is to protect the UK’s border and to make changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system. We are ensuring that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections that the UK has a long history of providing to those in need.
We have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure and our laws to be enforced, and we have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies at the hands of criminal gangs. The plan before us is a clear, impactful plan for change. The Bill will restore order and trust to our immigration and asylum system, and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to be able to tackle the people-smuggling gangs who exploit individuals and place them in perilous situations in the channel. This Government are committed to a fully functioning system, and we will debate migration as a whole in the White Paper in due course.
The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. To date, since the Government were elected, the National Crime Agency has seized 600 boats and engines, taken down 18,000 social media accounts, ensured that 30,000 people have been returned since the election, including a 23% increase in enforced returns of foreign national offenders, and is taking action on illegal working visits and arrests, increased by 40% and 42% respectively. But the Government need more powers to improve their performance on illegal migration. The Bill before the House today gives those powers to the agencies to make that difference. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening this debate today. It promises to be both an interesting and informative debate. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper, who I had the pleasure of working with at the Department for Transport and who I know will make a considerable contribution to the debates in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend has previous ministerial experience in the area of immigration, and I look forward to his contribution later.
I begin by welcoming the fact that, after years of opposing measures to improve border security and clamp down on illegal migration, the Labour Party has finally realised the importance of greater control over our borders. There are some positive noises coming from the Government’s actions. Clause 41 grants the Secretary of State the ability to detain a person while they are pending a deportation decision. Clause 48 reinterprets the United Kingdom’s construction of Article 33 of the refugee convention to include conviction of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the list of offences that constitute particularly serious crimes for which refugees may be removed. This is, of course, right: no person who enters this country and commits a crime, regardless of their method of entry or their status, should be permitted to remain.
Unfortunately, that is where our agreement with the Bill ends. Although, as I have said, the Government have begun to move in the right direction, the Bill does too little, too slowly. It does nothing to deter illegal crossings, it does nothing to expedite the removal of illegal migrants, and it does nothing to reduce the scale of illegal immigration.
On that last point, I am very pleased to see the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show that net migration to the UK for 2024 was 431,000—half the level of the previous year. This is all thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, as the ONS has acknowledged. Last year, my right honourable friend James Cleverly strengthened the Immigration Rules, raising the minimum income for those on skilled worker visas and family visas, and imposing a limit on the number of foreign students able to bring their dependants. It is clear that Conservative policies have delivered.
Let us look at what this Government have promised and what they have delivered. The 2024 Labour Party manifesto promised to
“turn the page and restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly, and fairly; and the rules are properly enforced”.
Yet the Government have presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter, with 31,276 people claiming asylum between September and December 2024. The number of people being given a grant of protection has increased to 17,477 in quarter 4 of 2024, up from 7,185 in quarter 2 of 2024. They have reversed the progress made by the previous Government in reducing asylum claims.
Not only this but the Government pledged to close all asylum hotels. After the previous Government reduced the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels to 29,585 by 30 June 2024, since the election those numbers have jumped to 38,079 on 31 December 2024, representing a rise of 22.3%. This begs the question: when will they end the use of asylum hotels, as they promised in their manifesto?
We heard time and again during the election, and indeed ever since, that the Government will “smash the gangs”, but it is now evident that this slogan was mere hyperbole. Can the Minister tell me how many gangs have been smashed by the policies of this Government? I look forward to receiving those figures, perhaps in his closing speech.
The Minister was keen to highlight the new role of the Border Security Commander and their counterterrorism-style powers. However, Clause 1(1) states that:
“The Secretary of State must designate a civil servant as the Border Security Commander”.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 state the functions of the commander, the duty to prepare annual reports and the duties of co-operation, and that is it. What the Government have presented us with is simply a redesignated civil servant without the powers to command anything. That extends across the whole Bill.
The Government have talked up this legislation as comprising tough new measures to tackle the people-smuggling gangs, yet they are repealing two pieces of legislation which would have had that exact effect. Clauses 37 and 38 repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The safety of Rwanda Act, ably taken through your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would have—had it not been scrapped the day the first flight was due to take off—provided a suitable deterrent to those considering taking the journey across the channel.
The Minister has pointed to the Government’s focus on the people-smuggling gangs which facilitate channel crossings. We agree that those gangs must be pursued, for theirs is a repulsive trade, but it is not enough to simply tackle supply; we must also tackle demand. While there are large numbers of people who are undeterred from paying the traffickers, the trade will continue.
The Rwanda scheme was the deterrent that would have hit that demand for small boat crossings. This built on the work of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for steering through that legislation, which created an obligation for the Home Secretary to remove any person who arrives illegally and prevented illegal entrants claiming asylum.
The previous Conservative Government struck a returns deal with Albania, which meant that the number of illegal arrivals of Albanian nationals fell from 12,658 in 2022 to just 924 in 2023. That is a 93% reduction in Albanian nationals illegally crossing the channel.
If the Government are serious about reducing illegal migration, why remove the deterrents that the Conservative Government legislated for? We can see the effects of the Government’s policies already; noble Lords will have seen the figures over the weekend. On 31 May, 1,194 migrants crossed the channel in small boats—the highest figure for a single day this year. This brings the total number of migrants who have crossed in small boats so far this year to 14,811; that is a 42% increase on the same point last year.
This Bill not only undoes much of that work but fails to provide suitable alternatives. The offence of endangering another during a sea crossing, as created by Clause 18, is unlikely to have any real impact because it can be committed only if a person has already committed an offence under subsections (A1), (B1), (D1) or (E1) of Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971—offences that were inserted into that Act by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip took through this House. Moreover, Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 already makes it an offence to assist or facilitate unlawful entry into the United Kingdom—an offence that is punishable by life sentence thanks to the changes made by my noble friend in the Nationality and Borders Act.
Furthermore, the powers contained in Clauses 20, 21 and 23, authorising officers to search, seize and access electronic devices, already exist in Section 15 of and Schedule 2 to the Illegal Migration Act, which the Government are repealing. Would it not make more sense to keep the existing powers, rather than repealing them and replacing them with something that is virtually identical? Of course, they would not have to include these “new” powers if they were not in the same Bill repealing Section 15 of and Schedule 2 to the Illegal Migration Act.
It is apparent that this Bill presents a missed opportunity. Even after this legislation becomes law, activist lawyers will still be able to use the Human Rights Act to bring vexatious claims against the Government to prevent the legitimate removal of those who have abused our immigration system, entered the country illegally and committed criminal offences. The Government should follow our policy of disapplying the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration law, thereby ensuring the timely removal of those with no right to be here. The Government have indicated that they are willing to shift in this direction. The immigration White Paper states that the interpretation of Article 8 of the convention must be reconsidered; even the Attorney-General has indicated that he is open to reinterpreting the convention as well.
This Bill also presents the Government with the opportunity to tighten the conditions for visas and indefinite leave to remain. The Immigration and Visas Bill, presented by my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary, would ensure that indefinite leave to remain can be granted only if the applicant’s salary does not fall below £38,700 and if they do not apply for any form of state benefits. Being granted the ability to remain in the UK indefinitely is a privilege, not a right. As such, we believe that those wishing to obtain that privilege should have made a net contribution to our country. Raising the threshold for receiving earned settlement would ensure precisely that. Given the Government’s new-found vim and vigour for more stringent controls of legal migration, I am sure that they will be amenable to such policies.
Let us not forget that reducing the level of net migration to the UK is overwhelmingly backed by the British people. Polling by More in Common has found that 65% of the public believe that immigration should be reduced. I should add that that stretches to supporters of all political parties, given that 57% of Liberal Democrat voters and 49% of Labour voters support cutting immigration. Further, 62% of the public, including 61% of Liberal Democrats and 50% of Labour voters, agree that it is too easy for people to live here illegally. We would all do well to remember that this is the voice of the British public, and it is precisely what they are demanding of their parliamentarians.
This Bill does not deliver what the British people desire or deserve. Where are the powers to prevent vexatious legal challenges being used to thwart legitimate removals? Where are the powers to ensure the deportation of all foreign criminals? Where is the deterrent? Where are the measures to bring down the level of net migration? The answer, of course, is that they are simply not there. These are glaring omissions that could and should be fixed by your Lordships as the Bill progresses. We on these Benches will be seeking to strengthen this Bill to deliver on the British people’s priorities; I hope that the Government will want to follow suit.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this slightly uneven Bill. It is a Bill that is both heavy and light at the same time: it is heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but it is light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom. I start with an initial question for the Minister: is the intention of this Bill to stop dangerous journeys by boat and other ways, or is it to stop people coming to claim asylum? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the intention of this Bill.
We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, both stopping dangerous journeys and creating a safe route to asylum, with those who do not qualify for asylum being removed swiftly and humanely. For those in the margins, there are some who may be persuaded by the measures in this Bill. However, our concern must surely be for those who satisfy the grounds for asylum in the United Kingdom but currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. Of those who travel here by small boat, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that figure does not take any appeals into consideration.
The answer to my initial question is fundamental to understanding the Government’s intentions. We welcome the measures in the Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel. We support the scrapping of the safety of Rwanda Act and significant parts of the Illegal Migration Act. However, we are concerned that this Bill’s purely punitive approach will not achieve its aims. We must be honest about the range of interventions needed to bring change. Voters are tired of tougher talk on immigration that fails to deliver promised outcomes. As a country, we cannot afford the consequences of more broken government promises on this issue.
So, although prosecuting criminal gangs is essential, as long as desperate people seek refuge in the United Kingdom without alternative routes, demand will persist and criminals will profit. Given the strong push factors for those fleeing persecution in countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Iran, we need interventions that change an individual’s calculation. Currently, paying a smuggler to bring them to safety is seen as the best, or the only, option available. We propose building on the successful UK resettlement scheme, which has already been referred to by the Minister, and family refugee reunion, along with a capped pilot for a humanitarian visa. Using the services of United Nations bodies in-country or close to in-country, this would allow those with a basis for a successful asylum claim to travel safely to the UK in order for their application to be considered. If the Government aim to reduce dangerous crossings, this would help; the Government would control an ordered, planned process and create an evidence base to evaluate such an approach. Safe routes are not an alternative to enforcement. They complement efforts to target criminal gangs. Both approaches must work together.
We are rightly concerned at the expenditure costs of maintaining and accommodating the nearly a quarter of a million people, which includes those going through appeals, in the processing backlog. In our view, the Government have missed the opportunity to include in this legislation permission to allow asylum seekers to work after three months. Although we welcome the 13% decline in the asylum backlog, the proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the past decade, going from 25% at the end of 2014 to 59% at the end of 2024. When the current working ban was introduced by the Labour Government in 2002, the argument about processing times was identical—a six-month target to process applications, after which those granted asylum were able to work—but the six-month target was not met then and is not being met now.
Allowing asylum seekers to work would help reduce the asylum support budget, the use of hotels and child poverty. It would assist local authorities in supporting newly recognised refugees. If someone has a job, they are more likely to support themselves quickly, reducing homelessness and state benefits claims. It would also improve cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be “paying their way”. Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that, especially if communities saw hotels being closed.
The Government have never produced any evidence that suggests that employment rights play a role in determining people’s choice of destination when seeking safety; the evidence in fact shows that employment rights are largely unknown to asylum seekers before they arrive in the United Kingdom. We have one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would align the UK with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months, or even less. Faster application processing and enhanced working rights should be complementary policies. That is why we also seek a three-month service standard for asylum decisions.
We welcome the Government’s repeal of Sections 31 to 35 of the Illegal Migration Act. However, if integration is the ultimate goal for us as a society, we should not choke off a person’s chance to become a British citizen simply on the basis of how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Recent updates to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance limit access to citizenship for refugees who entered the UK irregularly. This is counterproductive to integration and cohesion for those settled in the UK. The unclear policy guidance deters refugees from applying for citizenship due to the risk of wasting thousands of pounds if the application is refused out of hand.
We have deep concerns about the expansion and retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act on the safe country list. The list is problematic when decision-makers must declare asylum claims inadmissible from countries listed even where there is evidence of persecution. An example of that is Georgia, where its Members of Parliament are being locked up because they have offended the current Government. That country has been sanctioned by the UK for human rights abuses. This means that individualised assessment of asylum claims is essential and necessary. Countries may be safe for some people, but not always for all people.
We are concerned that the Bill retains and expands the detention powers in the Illegal Migration Act without implementing the safeguards recommended by the Brook House inquiry. We remain deeply concerned about immigration detention and the lack of progress since the Brook House report’s recommendations. Recent reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Harmondsworth indicate ongoing significant concerns. Poor processes and case progression result in people being detained when removal is not imminent and for longer than necessary in unacceptable conditions. Vulnerable people are detained when they should not be. The indefinite nature of detention causes particular harm and places no pressure on the Home Office to deal swiftly with cases. For those reasons, we will seek to amend the Bill with a 28-day time limit on detention, following recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the joint inquiry by the APPGs on migration and on refugees. This would reduce unnecessary and unlawful detention and ensure that it is used sparingly and only when removal is imminent and realistic.
We are also concerned that the criminal offences in Clauses 13 to 16 and 18 are too broad and risk criminalising those seeking asylum rather than solely targeting criminal gangs. We will seek to amend these clauses in Committee. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will expand on the modern slavery implications of the Bill later.
Finally, there is much to be done to secure action across our part of this continent. Resetting our relationship with the EU and its agencies is still in its headline stages. My noble friend Lady Ludford will examine these issues later.
I return to where I started: the fundamental question of supply and demand and the Bill being light on its ability to change asylum seeker behaviour. While the Bill may make a dent in the ability of the smuggling gangs to operate, it fails to answer the question of how we plan a safe way to manage those seeking asylum in our country. The Bill has a number of good points, many missing points and some major areas of concern—and we will try to deal with those areas during the course of our debates.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
If I were to set our annual borders Bill debates to music, I would pick Stravinsky. It has become a rite of spring, with clashing discords from the Conservative Front Bench and ritual incantations that there can be a sacrifice of international law because we are a dualist system.
We had the Nationality and Borders Bill three years ago and the Illegal Migration Bill two years ago. Then there was the ultimate absurdity of the Rwanda Bill, where we were invited to close our eyes and, by magical thinking and Westminster decree, make Rwanda safe and make ineligible all those whom we sent to Rwanda ever to seek asylum here. The House liked none of those Bills, amended them all and was overruled every time. So it is a great pleasure to welcome the 2025 Bill, because I can find nothing in it which is in clear breach of international law—and this is the first in recent memory. Moreover, I particularly welcome Clause 37, which wipes away the stain on the statute book that was the Rwanda Act.
That is the good news—and it is very good—but the Bill is not all good news. Getting rid of the 2024 Act but only parts of the 2023 Act means that we are still left with some bits of the 2023 Act that some of us opposed, including its removal of modern slavery protections for trafficking victims coerced into criminality. We are also left with the default provisions of the 2022 Act, which many believe were, in some respects, contrary to what we like to think of as a national tradition of fairness; some of them are inhumane and others are illogical.
It is not humane that we should still be so reluctant to see families reunited, yet the May White Paper threatens to make reunions harder by imposing new language and financial tests. It is not right that Clause 31 of this Bill would deny legal redress to those unlawfully detained or that the broad powers that Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State on tagging and curfews are not tempered by legal safeguards of any kind. It is neither humane nor logical—as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out—that those waiting in the asylum queue should still be denied the right to find a job. Changing that would be a win-win: it would be good for them, the economy and the public purse; it would be bad only for the criminals preying on them in the black economy.
I will make two further general points. Changing the rules of the game mid-match is usually not right. I find the retroactivity in Clause 31 particularly worrying. My inbox and Friday’s Financial Times remind me that a much larger community is worried about the potential retrospective application of the proposed change tucked away in paragraphs 264 and 266 of the White Paper.
People here on work visas, which they obtained under the points-based system, have had the right to apply after five years for indefinite leave to remain, but the White Paper suggests that in future this will be 10 years. Is that just for new arrivals, or does it mean that those already here will have to stay in limbo for another five years? The uncertainty about whether their uncertainty is to be extended is worrying many, as my inbox shows.
Retrospection would be unfair—it usually is. If retrospection is not the intention, it would be very good if the Minister could reassure the many who are worried. The FT tells us that 1.5 million people are worried about the Government’s intention. I very much hope he can reassure them and will do so.
Finally, back on asylum, it bears repeating that the best way of stopping the boats and putting the criminals out of business is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary. But for many with a justifiable, “well-founded fear of persecution”, in the words of the convention, in practice we provide no such route. Take Sudan, the world’s biggest current humanitarian catastrophe, worse even than Gaza. Sudan used to be our responsibility and should be on our conscience. There is a large Sudanese diaspora in this country, but for those now fleeing the civil war, carnage and starvation there, there is realistically no official or safe way they can apply to join Sudanese people here. Virtually 100% of those who do get here, coming by unofficial routes and seeking asylum, are granted asylum, such is the obvious horror they have left behind. It is our fault that they have to come as they do, with many dying en route. It does not need a Bill to put that right, but it really should be put right soon.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I really enjoyed that speech. I was thinking more of the “1812 Overture” than the “Rite of Spring”, given how many borders and immigration Bills I have been through here and in the House of Commons. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister. I thank him for his openness and willingness to listen and to discuss with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the issues that many of us are raising with him.
The Bill, together with the White Paper, has many good suggestions and ways forward. Quite a number have been mentioned already, including the removal of criminals from our country, which actually undermine the legitimacy of our border policy and the welcome that people in this country generally wish to give to asylum seekers.
It is wonderful that we are setting aside the legacy of Suella Braverman and the absurdity of the Rwanda suggestion. Now that it has gone, the Government have been able to start processing at some real speed. The Government have started to use this terrible Civil Service phrase that has crept into speeches as well as written material and letters, which is that they are “working at pace”. It is a terrible phrase. I really hope that people stop using it. It is a bit like “Stand ready”, which means “We are doing absolutely nothing”. We really have to talk normally. But the speeding up of the processing has been quite remarkable, as has the removal of people from the country who had no right to be here, and the Government deserve real credit for achieving that over the last 11 months. Asylum has now fallen substantially, which gives us a chance, I hope, to have rational and sensible debates about what needs to be done.
Mention has been made of More in Common, which is now the favoured political polling company. The truth is, and anybody who goes and speaks to people in communities such as the one I live in and used to represent knows, that it is the small boats crossing the channel that is worrying people. By its very nature it is going to worry them, not just because of the daily count and the reporting in the newspapers, but because of the danger and worry that people legitimately have for what is happening with organised criminality.
My suggestions, which have not yet been taken up, are twofold. One is that the new relationship with the President of France that has been developed by the Prime Minister could lead us to develop a licensing scheme for parts of boats so that they could not be purchased, transported or sold to people in France. That would immediately have a major impact on the ability of the French to intervene in the warehouses and transportation. The other would be that we build on Clause 45 of the Bill, which provides for electronic visas and documentation. Given that we have got the new NHS moves to digitalisation, the DVLA electronic programme, the unique pupil identifier and the so-called government digital wallet, it is time we had a sensible identity system for everyone, and that way, we could stop illegal working and access to public services by those who did not have the right to be here.
I have a real worry about the attitude on naturalisation in the Bill and the White Paper. Naturalisation is something we should be strongly in favour of. I have had very good discussions with my noble friend the Minister about this, and I understand the difficulties he faces. Because we are setting aside the awful legislation that we had to deal with, there is no legitimacy in or excuse for saying that those whose assigned claims can be processed should not be able to move in exactly the same way as others towards naturalisation. It is really unfortunate because it undermines our credibility in every other area in which we are now taking steps to reassure the world that we are committed to our international obligations and to the way in which we carry through our legal requirements.
I ask the Minister to please think again because it is bad for integration. Why would people want to stay here and not want to integrate? If they want to go home that is absolutely fine. The real problem now is people who are here legitimately on other visas, who then attempt to claim asylum when their visa stay is over. We could deal with that very easily by ruling out asylum for those whose country of origin has not had any material changes in terms of the threat to their life and the danger to their liberty. So let us try to get some balance into this at the same time as very strongly welcoming the measures that are being taken.
I have one final, small thing to ask my noble friend the Minister: please go back to the White Paper and set aside the notion of a surcharge on overseas students. It is a particularly pernicious and unpleasant measure, and unless the Home Office and the Department for Education get their act together and understand that when people pay for a service, when that service is provided at full cost when those costs allow us to cross-reference into research and to maintain our university system, we retain our reputation across the world. When we start to pull the plug on it, we do ourselves damage for no good reason whatever. I have not met anybody, even a Reform voter, who thinks it is a bad idea to encourage overseas students to pay large sums of money to receive a service and then to go back home and tell the world what a wonderful place the United Kingdom really is.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is my great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is a person on those Benches I have the most respect for when he speaks about these subjects, which he does without cant and with a great deal of knowledge and credibility.
It is important to remember that although illegal immigration attracts the most public attention, it is only a fraction of total immigration. Legal immigration is continuing at a rate which dwarfs anything we have known in our history. Indeed, it dwarfs all previous waves of immigration put together, and it will transform our country by the middle of this century or soon after. It could mean that the indigenous population will be a minority, strangers in their own land, to coin a phrase. I think that will be as much regretted by those who have come to live in this country, who wanted to come here because of the traditions that had grown up over centuries and did not really want to see them dwarfed into minority status.
The case for mass immigration was economic; when made by Tony Blair, he claimed it was necessary to promote growth and fill vacancies. Over the two decades since then, we have experienced the highest influx of migration in our history, the slowest rate of growth since the Middle Ages, and vacancies have doubled. So the thesis was absolutely discredited. But illegal immigration raises moral rather than economic issues, and I want to ask a question about the moral basis which appears to underpin the Bill.
The Minister explained that this Bill does two main things. It purports to strengthen the measures to “smash the gangs”, which, if successful, would presumably prevent migrants reaching these shores, and it removes from the statute book the Rwanda Act, which aimed to deter migrants from coming here. Why is it morally acceptable to try to prevent people leaving the beaches of France to come to the UK, but immoral and unacceptable to deter them from leaving France to come here?
We know that prevention does not work—Saturday saw nearly 1,200 people arrive by boat in a single day. Most measures in the Bill, supposedly designed to beef up prevention, appear trivial. The border security commander will be made statutory, but he will have no troops to command, only the power to convene existing operational agencies, which, I would have thought, was the duty of the Minister. He will have to produce a strategy—a frank admission by the Government that they do not themselves have a strategy. But even if these measures have some practical impact, it is clear that tens of thousands of asylum seekers will continue to cross the channel—unless, that is, the Government succeed in smashing the gangs. Then what happens? Does that mean that no asylum seekers would be able to reach this country, and there would be no one to facilitate their journey, or would they be able to come without the help of the gangs? In which case, why do they not do that now, if these gangs are so cruel, vile and horrible? There is a clear conflict within the Government’s policy. Either their policy will work, in which case it will stop people getting here and claiming asylum, or, as we know, it will not really work and will have precious little effect.
By contrast, we know that deterrence can work. Once it was made clear that Albanians would be returned to Albania, the number of arrivals from that country, or at least purporting to be from that country, plummeted. When Australia demonstrated the certainty of being returned to Indonesian waters, the influx into Australia ended. At present, given the choice between staying in France and coming to England, many migrants are prepared to take the risky crossing. But does anyone believe that, if they knew the choice was not between France and Britain but between France and Rwanda, they would opt for Rwanda? They would stay in the EU, if not in France. So, prevention will not stop illegal immigration, which means lives will continue to be lost, whereas deterrence has the potential to start to work and therefore save lives. So I repeat my question: why is prevention morally acceptable but deterrence immoral and unacceptable?
The Minister asserted that the Rwanda scheme was unworkable. He did not explain why or in what ways. Those who operated the Australian system believe that Rwanda is eminently workable, and other countries are looking at it and are attracted to it. But in any case, it is a bit rich to say that the Rwanda scheme would not work when prevention manifestly has not worked here or anywhere else.
The noble Lord, Lord German, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, argued that we should create safe and legal routes. That is often presented as if it is largely going to solve the problem of migration. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, argued the same; it is indeed a springtime tune from him, or rather, he advocates safe and legal routes in all seasons. The suggestion is that somehow, the people who would have come by boat will come by these safe and legal routes. Some of them might but many would not, and many would be refused and would then still want to come via the boats. But, once these safe and legal routes are established, many other people who at present do not attempt or consider attempting the crossing will apply. So the total number of people coming is bound to increase significantly.
I would like to know whether those who are advocating this as if it is a soft option would be happy to see these additional people coming by safe and legal routes ending up in Liberal Democrat constituencies, for example. I suspect they would find that their voters—who are never told at the local level that it is Lib Dem policy to increase the number of people coming to this country—would be very unhappy about what is proposed.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the diocese in which I serve covers one of the most diverse parts of the country. Indeed, arguably, south London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. This diversity is often represented in our churches, which have benefited, as has the rest of the country, from the great human fact of migration. It would be good to hear some recognition of this in government and Home Office statements.
It is worth stressing that the vast majority of migrants to this country come here properly under the Immigration Rules, and thus there is no proper sense in which their arrival and settlement can be described as uncontrolled. The Government of the day may, for good reasons of public policy, wish to alter the rules or introduce fresh primary legislation, but that does not mean that a system and process is not in place, that applications are not assessed and fees paid, and that the results do not match what Parliament has sanctioned.
Should this Bill pass, it will be, I think, the 13th piece of primary legislation on immigration since 1997. No one should doubt the interest of successive Governments in this subject. Indeed, I wish to congratulate His Majesty’s Government on recently publishing a White Paper on their further intentions in this area, something that had happened only once since 2002. The return of more regular engagement on major issues of policy is to be welcomed. The repeal of provisions in the safety of Rwanda Act is also welcome, although I note with concern what has been said in this debate about the weakening of the provisions of modern slavery legislation.
I wish to make a point about resources which I believe is relevant to the Bill and its impact. The Bill is concerned to a significant extent with enforcement, not least with the effectiveness and statutory footing of a new border security command. But the business of managing migration into the UK is a resource-intensive activity, and I fear that attempts to substitute more draconian sanctions in a concertina of legislation down the years is no substitute for the resources needed to train and staff border control, casework, intelligence and enforcement. The result is backlogs, asylum accommodation—which in some instances resembles a dystopian novel—and a detention estate which repeatedly fails inspection. No conceptual framework sketched out in Explanatory Notes will compensate for an absence of staff or mitigate hurried and arbitrary decisions where more nuanced consideration is required.
I appreciate that such comments are unwelcome in the closing days of a spending review, but please consider this. The pressure of those who wish to come to Europe is not mitigated by the abandoning of our commitment of 0.7% of GDP to aid. The allocation of billions of pounds of the aid budget to support asylum and refugee costs in this country is not matched by any other G7 country. In 2024, it was just over £2.8 billion. The Prime Minister, in recently announcing a further reduction in aid spending to 0.3% of GDP, stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is no longer to be the spender or saver of last resort. That, at least, is welcome, as is the announcement that it will no longer be expected to meet unpredicted rises in refugee costs during the year.
But these Benches have never welcomed diverting humanitarian and development aid to other purposes. On pragmatic grounds alone, to do so raises migratory pressures and increases the influence of those whose geopolitical objectives are contrary to our own. Might there be space in this Bill for something addressing safe and legal routes and the nexus of humanitarian crises, if the Government are minded to do so at this point?
The Bill references powers to detain. I end by drawing the Minister’s attention to the Refugee & Migrant Advice Service alternative to detention pilot, a community-based alternative to detention, sponsored jointly by the Home Office and UNHCR between 2020 and 2022. The cost was significantly less than that of detention, it was more congenial to participants and I understand that the absconding rate was low. Ministers at the time decided not to pursue it further. I ask the Minister whether the current Government might revisit the pilot and consider greater use of this approach. I look forward to his summing up.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this whole subject, not just today but in weeks and months gone by. I also express my gratitude to the many NGOs and charitable organisations which have provided us with really superb briefing—almost too much of it. It took me most of yesterday to absorb some of it, but how helpful they have all been and how much work they have put into it. I shall say a little about relations with European Union countries, about safe and legal routes and about children, but let me start by saying just a bit about public opinion.
The whole debate about immigration and asylum has been bedevilled by the way in which public opinion has been quoted and what public opinion is believed to think. There are times when senior people in office—of either party—have a responsibility to talk about asylum seekers and refugees in ways which make local communities feel more sympathetic, rather than hostile. I remember walking down the road in Hammersmith many years ago, when we had earlier legislation, and somebody was shouting at me. Normally, when people shout at any of us, we know it is abuse, do we not? We have all had it happen to us. But oh no, she shouted at me, “Keep going with your amendments!” Not a dramatic slogan, but goodness me, I was so encouraged by it. I believe that we must, in debating these issues, be aware that public opinion has to be won over. It is no good saying that public opinion is always going to be hostile. It has to be won over. I welcome the measures in this Bill that will defeat smugglers and traffickers. There are things about the Bill I would like to see changed, and no doubt Committee will give us many opportunities to do that.
I turn to co-operation with EU countries. I understand that the Government have tried very hard to have better arrangements with EU countries, and there have been numerous discussions with France. It is a little concerning that we see or we hear reports on television that the French police do not have the power to deal with the boats once they are just offshore, and I believe the Government are going to deal with that. It is essential that we have better agreements with all these countries. We cannot defeat the smugglers and traffickers unless those agreements are based on firm and good co-operation. We have action plans with Italy and Germany; I think we need to do a little more with France. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that we are hopeful of having a new agreement before too long with the French. I welcome the Government’s firm commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let me turn for a little to safe and legal routes. We keep talking about them; I think they matter. I have met the people in Calais on several occasions, and it seems to me that they would not be there unless there was no other way of getting to safety. Some of them have good reasons for wanting to come to this country, such as family reunion or because they had an education here or they speak English. It is notable that when we had the Ukrainian programme—and there were faults with it—the fact is that, in all that time, only five or six Ukrainians actually came across on the channel. They were persuaded that there were other ways of getting to safety, and they made use of them.
I am concerned about immigration detention, and I hope that we can look in detail at the proposals for immigration detention, new detention powers and what safeguards there are for people who are being held in detention, not because they have necessarily committed any criminal offences. I am also a bit concerned about the Home Secretary’s powers to impose tagging and curfew requirements on anyone with limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. I have confidence that the present Home Secretary would use those powers properly, decently and responsibly, but, of course, it may be that the Home Secretary is changed from time to time, and we have to give them powers which do not depend on the humanity of the individual holding the office at the moment.
About 18 months’ ago, I visited Calais on one of many occasions, and I met children and young people who were trying to get to the UK. There were some from Sudan who said to me very clearly, “We can’t afford to pay a trafficker. We haven’t got the money. The only way we can get to the UK is if there is a trafficker who says, ‘You steer the boat over and you’ll get a free trip’”. That, of course, means that they are committing a criminal offence in this country. So it is a way, sadly, of making victims the people who are going to be punished. We have to be very careful about the way in which they use the criminal law in such a way. Of course, like everybody else, I would like to see the traffickers got rid of and their miserable, dangerous trade disappear.
I think the Bill should give an opportunity for family reunion, including for children who are outside the UK to be able to join family members here. We have had such legislation before, and it was passed, but somehow or other it then disappeared under the last Government as well. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate what assessment the Government have made of the White Paper proposals to restrict family reunion rules. I think there are some restrictions there, particularly if the language and financial requirements are too onerous for people who do not have the money. I hope the Minister can respond to that. I wish the Minister well, and I thank him again for his willingness to be so open and discuss these issues both here and, of course, outside.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, too, have visited Calais and I totally agree that no one would live there if they had a choice. Those people are clearly desperate, and one can perhaps understand why they are taking desperate routes. I am also speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so I cannot tell him what a wonderful speech he has just made, but I am sure it will be excellent.
I listened to the two opening speeches with something close to despair, because I get the sense that the Labour Government want to do something right, but I think they have missed opportunities here. Of course, the Opposition had 14 years to put this right and what we actually saw was 14 years of draconian rules and legislation that focused public attention on stopping the boats but at the same time allowed a huge abuse of the system with billionaires in private jets siphoning off taxpayers’ money during austerity and the Covid crisis. We had 14 years of a hostile environment and 14 years of draconian rules, and what did we actually get out of it? Rwanda was the most ridiculous threat, and I am delighted that that has now gone.
Certainly, in those 14 years, the criminal gangs got richer and the people who were letting out their hotels to refugees also got richer, but, of course, the number of people arriving by small boats has kept on climbing. Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco made a combined profit of £385 million since 2019. That has grown, because the Government deliberately allowed a backlog in asylum claims as part of their failed policy of deterrence. The “Bibby Stockholm” refugee barge was yet another failed deterrent, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for things such as the high-cost docking fees at Portland Port.
The last Government tried deterrents. They did not work and led to much higher bills for taxpayers but not to any real advantage. Refugees do not want to live on ships or in hotels. They want to become citizens and build new lives for themselves as previous waves of immigrants did. Whether descended from the Huguenots, German Jews, Ugandan Asians or other families that have fled persecution and war to make a good life here for hundreds of years, the vast majority want to contribute to society. They are grateful to be taken in and allowed to live without danger.
Most of today’s refugees want to earn a living and not rely on handouts, but our Government will not let them. Most want to contribute and benefit our economy, but our Government make them a problem instead of part of the solution. The problem is not the refugees; it is the Government’s failed attempts to deter them, which have not worked but have made things much worse and created bigger problems. I know that Labour wants to sort out the huge delays in processing asylum claims and to cut down on the use of hotels, but they are keeping most of the draconian rules that were passed by the previous, clueless Government.
Why are this Labour Government retaining provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that when in opposition they condemned as immoral and destructive of human rights commitments? They even voted alongside the Greens and the Lib Dems to defeat the previous Government 19 times on those draconian rules that they regarded as unacceptable. Why have His Majesty’s Government failed to make any provision for safe routes to this country for people seeking asylum—including people with close family and other connections here? The Government expect us to pass a law that says, “If you arrive here via a small boat, or in the back of a lorry, you’re not regarded as a person of good character and are therefore ineligible to settle”. However, because no additional safe routes are set up, the only way that you can be a person of good character, according to Labour, is not to arrive here at all. These are not the actions of a Government who treat vulnerable people with fairness and decency, and, quite honestly, they are not a Government who deserve to be in power.
Lord Harper (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She started off her speech so well with her kind remarks about a speech that I had not yet given. Having listened to the rest of her speech, I fear that this is one subject on which she and I are destined not to agree.
It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House and to have the opportunity to continue in public service. I thank Black Rod and her team, the doorkeepers, the clerks and the Lord Speaker’s team, who all made me very welcome before my introduction and subsequently. I also thank the catering team, who looked after my guests so very well. I should also thank, for supporting my introduction, my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as well as my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, who, whether or not he thinks it an honour, has been assigned as my mentor to keep me out of trouble.
Although I served in the other place for 19 years, I am well aware that this House is very different. I fear that this is the time to make a confession. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats, as a matter of great principle, insisted that the coalition Government tried to reform your Lordships’ House. I was the lucky junior Minister tasked with preparing a Bill to elect this House. Noble Lords will be aware that this was kiboshed by my then colleagues in the House of Commons, who saw that it was a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons, and that Bill made no further progress. However, since I have been here, I have been very pleased to see that so many of those Liberal Democrats whom I worked closely with in the coalition Government have felt able to serve in this House for many years. I hope to see them here for many years into the future. There is hope for us all.
After the coalition Government, we had the election in 2015, at which the Conservatives won our first majority for 23 years. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton asked me to be the Government Chief Whip. I hope your Lordships will indulge me: I should put on record a tribute to the late Sir Roy Stone, who was my principal private secretary when I was Government Chief Whip. He served in that capacity for over two decades. A finer and wiser public servant you could not wish to find. All those who came across him professionally will miss him, but the biggest loss will be felt by his family—his wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. A fulsome tribute was paid in the other place. I wish to put mine on the record in your Lordships’ House.
When I was Government Chief Whip, I worked very closely with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was the Government Chief Whip here. He made it clear to me that whipping in your Lordships’ House is a much subtler art than it is perhaps at the other end of the building. You do not have the same tools at your disposal. However, I did not realise quite how different it was until I sat in on my first few sessions of Oral Questions here. I marvelled at the magical abilities of the pen of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which is amazingly able to select who can speak when there is a clash. I felt a certain level of envy that I did not have that power when I was the Government Chief Whip at the other end of the building. I suspect that his pen is authoritative, because noble Lords think that he exercises it with a certain amount of fairness and judiciousness. I hope that level of fairness extends, perhaps especially, to those of us who have been Chief Whips, so that we get a fair crack of the whip.
Turning to the subject matter at hand, I have some experience in this, having served as Immigration Minister when my noble friend Lady May was Home Secretary. The Minister shadowed our home affairs team for a number of years. A couple of weeks ago, he referred in this House to Labour having always had a very robust policy on migration. My noble friend and I were a little surprised. We had not spotted that enormous support when he was in opposition. However, it is always nice to see a sinner repenteth.
On this Bill, I will say a couple of things. First, when I was the Immigration Minister, I tried, as I know my noble friend Lady May did, to put in place tough measures but talk moderately and reasonably about this subject. I feat the Government are in danger of doing the opposite—talking tough but not having sufficiently tough measures. I will draw out a couple. First, we have seen illegal migration via small boats rise by 30% since the election and, secondly, the Government have removed with this Bill the deterrent, the Rwanda scheme, without replacing it with an alternative. There is not time now to dwell on these matters, but I give the Minister notice that I will be doing so in Committee and on Report. I look forward to our clashes perhaps across your Lordships’ House in due course.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on a very deft, excellent and accomplished maiden speech. It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow him. My noble friend was introduced to this House as recently as 13 May, so in speaking so soon he has helped to prove an important point, which is that if one is of sufficient seniority and knowledge, one should not be afraid here to get stuck in. My noble friend is of great seniority and knowledge as a former Minister for Disabled People, as a former Minister for Constitutional Affairs—he referred to some of his travails in that duty—as a former Secretary of State for Transport at Cabinet level and as a former Chief Whip, where he always conducted himself with the discretion that we associate with those who have held that office.
Above all, of course, he is a former Minister for Immigration under the leadership of my noble friend Lady May, who is in her place. He therefore knows how the nuts and bolts of the system work. I look forward to the Minister responding to what he said. I congratulate him once again on his maiden speech; we look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
Today, however, I want to follow a slightly different path. His speech was focused on what the Bill will seek to do, whereas I want to address whether it is capable of doing it. I ask at the very start: how much do we really know about migration into and out of the country? How many migrants are in Britain today? Where do they come from? For how long are they entitled to be here? What are they doing while they are here? How many overstay and how many are removed? Finally, are they making a net contribution to the economy or are they a cost to the taxpayer? I ask these questions in the wake of data uncovered by my Commons colleague, Neil O’Brien. He has discovered that benefit claims by households with at least one foreign national have doubled to nearly £1 billion a month in the past three years.
Finding answers is made no easier by the absence of systemic exit checks and the asymmetry of entry checks. On exit checks, we rely on advance passenger information from carriers, selective Border Force checks and administrative data—council tax information, DVLA data, NHS records and so on. On entry checks, the bedrock of the system, the International Passenger Survey, was designed to monitor tourism, not migration. The databases used by different departments to record migration often define it differently. Further, published ONS statistics break down migration data only into EU, non-EU and British categories, but not specific nationalities. Anyone coming to the country on a visitor visa to see family or for tourism, for example, is excluded from migration statistics by default, as is anyone on a temporary work visa.
Therefore, what will this Bill do, in its sharing of information provisions under Part 1 or elsewhere to: on exit, increase the number of exit checks and standardise the information received from them; and, on entry, ensure that the databases used by government use the same definitions of migrant and can talk to each other? Additionally, what will the Bill do, if anything, to break down migration data into specific nationalities, so that we can find answers to some of the questions that I posed at the start of my speech? Further, what impact will the Bill have, if any, on the Inter-departmental Task Force on Migration Statistics, set up as long ago as 2006, to improve the quality, coherence and accessibility of migration statistics?
To return to those who overstay on visitor visas and temporary work visas, how many of the roughly 2.2 million people who arrived last year on visitor visas and the 78,000 people who arrived on temporary work visas overstayed? Is it correct that, annually, 92,000 visa nationals across all visa types, and up to 250,000 non-visa national visitors, may not depart on time? Is it also correct that as few as 1,000 visa national overstayers of these 92,000 or so, and as few as 500 of these 250,000 or so, are removed each year? To look at visa types more closely, is it correct that as many as 15,000 non-EU student visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 1,000 of these are removed each year; that as many as 5,000 family visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 500 are removed each year; that as many as 30,000 asylum seekers may become unauthorised annually by remaining in the UK after their claims are refused and their appeals exhausted, and as few as 5,000 of these are removed each year; and that as many as 900 people enter the UK irregularly each year without claiming asylum, and as few as 50 are removed each year?
Regardless of whether these totals are accurate or not, what targets do the Government have to increase the number of removals for this year and future years, if any? I do not expect the Minister to answer this barrage of questions when he replies to the debate at the Dispatch Box, but it is vital that we get them, both for the purposes of planning for the future and for maintaining confidence in the system. Will the Bill enable us to craft a more selective and efficient, as well as a more restrictive, immigration system? That should be a key test for the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, from this side, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. Whether or not he always agrees with the indefatigable noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I hope that he will find this House capable of always disagreeing well.
It is not so much a declaration of interest as a description of context to say that I am the daughter of late and lawful 1950s Commonwealth migrants to this country and a human rights lawyer of just over 30 years. For the avoidance of doubt, and at possible risk of confounding some potential expectations, I accept this Bill’s underlying premises of both border security and immigration control.
A democratic political community is of course defined by its borders as well as its values and laws. It has a prerogative to assess and balance its social, economic and cultural needs, including some desire for reciprocal international work, study, trade and tourism on the part of its own citizens. As a matter of logic and international law, it retains considerable discretion on the question of how many and what kind of visas to grant to non-nationals seeking to enter its territory for various purposes. This should be exercised, I would suggest, with considerable care, given the often competing interests of different economic actors in particular. Some employers, and—dare I say it—government departments, may have a strong instinct towards importing large amounts of skilled, and even unskilled, workers. This may be laudable, and at times vital to fuel innovation or fill gaps in services or the labour market, but less so if it is designed to suppress wages below what is fair or even sustainable for living.
Since World War II, however, there has been—rightly, in my view—far less discretion about how to treat a much smaller number of people for whom travel comes not from preference, but persecution. Let us please always remember that we have a refugee convention, a European convention and so on, as a direct result of some of the worst atrocities of the past century and the plight of those who were denied safe passage to, and asylum in, countries such as our own at that time.
The 1951 refugee convention in particular enshrines the principles of non-refoulement, sending people back or onwards to their peril; non-penalisation, not punishing them for the desperate and even clandestine means of their escape; and non-discrimination against them. All three of these principles were violated by the legislation of recent years, in particular the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the legislative lie that is the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. The Government are to be commended for seeking to repeal so much of that toxic legacy. However, I am sure that we will explore in Committee how that repeal does not go far enough, in a number of respects, to achieve either the legality or simplicity that I hope most of us want to see.
Before even the legislation came the politics for which our leaders are just as responsible. In my opinion, a grand political swindle was perpetrated upon the British electorate in recent years. Notwithstanding Brexit slogans about controlling borders, large numbers of international workers were consciously invited into the UK, while a fraction of those numbers of asylum seekers, mostly genuine refugees and often from sites of Britain’s previous overseas military adventures, were demonised beyond recognition. That is dishonest, dangerous and, frankly, immoral.
As we examine both the broad brushstrokes and detailed drafting of the Bill, I hope we can work with care and precision to distinguish between immigration control and refugee protection. I accept that the latter is a responsibility we share with other rule-of-law-loving territories, which, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said, must be discharged in greater collaboration, including to avoid wherever possible desperate people taking perilous journeys. But it is one thing to criminalise traffickers and smugglers and another to dehumanise, deprive, detain and deport their desperate human cargo, who are not and have never been illegal, let alone criminal.
In life and in politics, just as much as legislation, words matter. They have consequences beyond the next headline. I was born just over a year after Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech. A few months later, my then young parents were violently attacked by violent thugs trying to take their baby from her pram in a London park. That may be too long ago for the bright young things who draft political speeches to remember, but surely not for your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction earlier and the many organisations who have sent us briefings. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I say from the Lib Dem Benches that, despite the fact we are here, we still would like to see reform of your Lordships’ House.
I support everything said by my noble friend Lord German earlier, and will try not to cover those areas too much. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who spoke with her customary clarity and power.
In some ways, the Bill is disappointing, but the Government are right to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We always said in opposition that Rwanda was not safe. The cost—with not one person deported—must still be an embarrassment to those on the Conservative Benches. Some think that perhaps the whole Illegal Migration Act should go the same way; that was yet more unworkable migration legislation designed for newspaper headlines—much of it not commenced.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, cited More in Common’s research on migration as a whole, but he failed to mention that, in questions further down most of those polls, when people are asked whether they would like to see more vacancies remaining in social care or for nurses in hospitals, they tend to say no. That is partly because people get confused between the migration that we describe as “regular” and asylum seekers and that which is irregular. We need clarity about migration, in particular the distinction that those seeking asylum are not coming here for economic needs. We know that the vast majority of migrants arrive here legally, yet the public spin has muddled the irregular with it and continues to do so.
I do not think anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has spoken about student migration numbers yet. We know that they form part of the OECD data, which is why we always have to have them there, but there is nothing to stop the Government making sure people understand that international students are good for universities, good for economies locally and nationally, and good for the future of ground-breaking science, research and technology.
Over the last 10 years, a number of noble Lords have spoken regularly about the status and plight of children in the many migration Bills. This Bill, sadly, does not remove the concerns that some of us still have. The last Government set up the National Age Assessment Board, NAAB, using so-called visual assessment methods and scientific biological methods—which, by the way, qualified doctors refused to use. During the passage of what is now the Illegal Migration Act, the then Government cited that other European countries were using scientific age-assessment techniques, ignoring the fact that someone being assessed was also given legal support to protect them, which was not available in this country. Since last year, a number of European countries have stopped using this technique because it is unreliable and has resulted in children being put into adult accommodation with no facilities for them. That is a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as a breach of the UN convention on the rights of refugees. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that that will be reviewed. Some of us may even lay amendments to that effect.
We need change because of those errors, but there is a further issue around how to safeguard children who are assumed to be adults and are then charged under the Bill with an offence of illegally entering the country or any of the other offences cited in the Bill. At present, a child refugee mistaken as an adult is automatically treated as an adult under criminal proceedings. We do not do that for children in our domestic criminal justice system for a very good reason. Can the Minister say how these age-disputed children facing criminal proceedings will be protected?
Along with other noble Lords, I am concerned that this Government’s proposals, especially the new financial burdens on asylum seekers, will limit and reduce the number of refugee families travelling safely to the UK to reunite with a family member. For children, this is particularly traumatic.
Clauses 34 and 35 have sensible provisions on flexibility in taking biometric information. We remember the success of Op Pitting during the emergency evacuation of Afghanistan and how the British Government were able to make change happen very quickly. However, there are concerns about the proposed extensions to use these biometrics, which can, in practice, be impossible for asylum seekers, especially women and children, to achieve. Taking the example of Afghanistan, they might have to travel over a border into Iran to try to get to a British consulate to get the biometric data sorted, and then get back to Afghanistan, which they want to leave. We will raise this in Committee because we are concerned that it is a problem. The Government’s intention is a good one, but how will it work in practice?
My noble friend Lord German, and in another place my honourable friend Lisa Smart MP, raised the important issue of those seeking asylum being allowed to work after more than three months and, importantly, to pay their way in this country. On the plus side, for asylum seekers, the right to work would give them the chance to use their skills and restore their confidence and morale as they build their new lives. These people will also help our economy, especially in skills shortage areas. Earning wages would mean contributing to taxes and national insurance, and paying for their own food and accommodation, thus reducing bills. I look forward to Committee, where many different issues will be raised.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill and to follow a characteristically comprehensive and persuasive opening speech by my noble friend the Minister, as well as the well-informed and forensic contribution of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
It would be impossible in six minutes for me to engage with any substantial amount of the issues that have been alluded to or discussed; everything that has been said thus far in today’s proceedings has been wide ranging and reflective of the broader debate on these questions. So, mindful of time and of the specificity of previous contributions, I plan to restrict myself to one or two observations about the Bill’s provisions, as well as the broader challenges that they seek to engage. Given the nature and tone of other contributions, I do not intend to belabour the point about the inheritance bequeathed to my noble friend the Minister and the Government by the party opposite, but it is worth emphasising that the measures we are debating today are necessitated by 14 years, or thereabouts, of largely ineffectual policy, with occasional performative harshness here and there in that period.
Here, I will depart from my script to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his excellent maiden speech. I look forward to debating with him and hearing him debate in future.
I welcome the commitment in the Bill to cross-agency working under the aegis of the new border security commander. It is unquestionably true that previous efforts to reduce illegal arrivals in the UK were hamstrung by a lack of co-ordination and a tendency for government departments and agencies to work in silos. Under the provisions of Clauses 3 and 5, partner authorities in their activities must only “have regard” for the strategic priorities document produced by the commander. Thinking over the strength of those provisions, I read the Second Reading proceedings in the other place, and while picking my way through the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, I realised, peering through a mist of disbelief and astonishment on some occasions, that I found myself responsive to one, but only one, element of his remarks. He suggested something supported by a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which other noble Lords may have received; that the title “border security commander” is something of a misnomer, given that these provisions presuppose a system based on co-operation rather than compliance. What precedent have the Government drawn upon in coming to the decision that the commander and partner authorities should have regard for, rather than comply with, the priorities in the strategic document?
Clause 37, repealing the entirety of the safety of Rwanda Act, is, of course, entirely welcome. I cannot help but be struck by the criticism levelled at the Government by the Benches opposite in this context. We have been told on a number of occasions already that we are removing a deterrent that could have a transformational effect on the inflow of illegal migration. In order to take this critique seriously—which, frankly, I do not—we have to accept that, having finally found a silver bullet for a problem that has bedevilled this country for years, the previous Government did not discharge it or receive a consequent wave of acclimation from a grateful nation, but called a general election before the first flight had taken off. This repeal only confirms what we already knew: that this scheme was performative rather than substantive in conception and intent.
In this context, I should also mention those voices who urge the UK to disregard elements of international law to ensure that we can take appropriately severe measures to discourage illegal migration. Apart from comments already made in this speech, although this is a national problem, it can be solved only with international co-operation. The new agreements that this Government have reached with Germany, Iraq, the Calais group and the G7 are testament to this. Displaying a disregard for international law before asking for co-operation with international partners, would, to say the least, represent a somewhat quixotic approach.
On the wider point of the international picture, I have a question for the Minister about the retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. As noble Lords will be aware, Section 59 makes any asylum or human rights claim by a national of a safe state inadmissible, save in exceptional circumstances. I know that the Section 59 powers have not been commenced, but if they are not going to be used, why not use this Bill to remove them altogether? To take but one example of the commencement of these powers possibly posing a problem, which has already been alluded to, Georgia was added to the safe states list by the previous Government but is an increasingly hostile environment for LGBTQ people. Given that the Home Office recently granted asylum to people from Georgia, the purpose of Section 59, even in abeyance, is somewhat questionable.
Mindful of time, I limit myself to one final question. On 10 February, the Home Office published significant changes to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship applications. The updated guidance stipulates that asylum seekers who previously entered the UK illegally will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since their entry. I accept that, where safe and legal routes exist, taking the alternative of illicit entry can legitimately be seen as evidence of an absence of good character. However, if someone has a legitimate claim to asylum but came from a country with no safe legal route in place at the time they entered, is this really evidence of want of good character? I would be grateful for the Minister’s reflections on that question.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I add to the welcome to my noble friend Lord Harper. It is good to see him here bolstering our side of the House, although I hope his plea for preferential treatment for former Chief Whips is ignored in the way that it should be. But it is very good to see him here.
The Bill we are debating this evening could not have come on a more embarrassing day for the Government, with 1,194 illegal immigrants having come over in 18 dinghies on Saturday alone—the fifth-largest number in a single day, totalling 38,053 since the election. Britain has lost control of its borders: those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State for Defence. If it is true that Britain has lost control of its borders, the exam question is, does this Bill give us control back over our borders or does it in some way fall short?
We have discussed various matters, and we will have plenty of time in Committee to flesh those out, not least the role of the border security commander. Many of us have not been impressed by the work over the years of either the UK Border Agency or Border Force, and it has always been my view that there is a huge cadre of people in this country whose employment we terminate far too soon. I am talking about senior military figures, senior civil servants, Foreign Office people and so forth. We let them go at a point when they have many years of useful life left in them. I would have thought that we should look very carefully at making part of their retirement a secondment to boost this part of government. They would bring expertise, greatly improving the processing of applications and so forth, which we all want to see. I hope the Government will give that some consideration.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who spoke before me, said, this all depends on co-operation. Can the Minister update us on our current relations with the French? Of course, we are an island; we are dependent on the French. We have given them some £476 million in a three-year deal, and seeing their behaviour over the past few days, I wonder whether we are getting any value for money from that. What discussions can we have with the French? How can we further incentivise them? Of course, if you are in France, inevitably, you do not necessarily want to retain people—you want to see them go—but why are we giving the French money if they are simply not fulfilling their part of the deal? What discussions about this legislation has the Minister had with the Irish Government in Dublin, given that another way people can come into this country is through Northern Ireland?
There has been a lot of discussion about Rwanda, and we can argue about that until the cows come home. It was oven-ready, and I understand why those who did not want to proceed with it did not, but what has it been replaced by? On his recent visit to Albania, the Prime Minister met with a rebuff. So what other countries are we now talking to? I hear that the Balkans are under increasing Russian influence. We are told that the SIS has advised the Government against the Balkans, which are a tinderbox at the moment. Who else are we negotiating with? What is the expectation that we will get a deal? What is the timeline? Crucially, what is the fallback if we do not get a deal with any third country?
This Bill deals with the future, but very little is going to happen immediately and, crucially, it ignores the population of this country. I have always said that you cannot have a grown-up conversation about how many people you want to live in this country and how many people you want to come to this country unless you know how many people are living in this country. We do not, and this Bill does nothing to address that. It talks about guaranteeing the security of our borders, but it says nothing about guaranteeing the security of the country within its borders. Can the Government guarantee that those who have come here over the years illegally wish the country well and do not present a credible threat at times?
That brings me to my conclusion and an issue which I shall be raising in Committee. It follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said about the introduction of biometric ID cards. This moves towards that. The Minister is falling into the trap, because he is going to raise again the fact that I was in a Government who passed the Identity Documents Act 2010 to get rid of them. I went to the Library to check how I voted. I was a Northern Ireland Minister of State at the time, and I was rather hoping I would not be here, but of course, the Minister will appreciate the principle of ministerial collective responsibility. Equally, I think one is allowed to change one’s mind over 15 years.
There has been a huge change in circumstance. There has been a huge change in the accretion—if that is the right word—of our identity; we all cede it the whole time to the NHS, to credit card companies and so forth. It is staring us in the face. If we had a good biometric ID system here, we could work out who is in this country first and foremost before we then decide how many more people we want to come, and that is something I believe we should debate better.
This is a contentious subject, but by doing nothing or not enough about it we are playing into the hands of parties such as Reform. The Government are understandably nervous about the inroads that Reform is making in northern seats in particular. I say gently to everybody in this House that the less we do about this, the more it plays to Reform. I still believe there is a gap between what people expect from the Government on immigration and what politicians are delivering. The wider that gap—the more it is allowed to exist—the more it will play to those on the extremes, which I believe we all wish to avoid.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an excellent maiden speech and welcome him warmly.
I broadly welcome the Bill, and I believe that many of the enforcement measures it contains will assist in the fight against organised immigration crime. They had better, because this scourge is a growing threat to the cohesion of our society and the credibility of our democratic institutions. That is true not just here in the UK but across the whole of democratic Europe. People are losing trust, so it is essential that we are realistic and honest about what we face. It is clear that mass migration on the scale we are now seeing and the organised crime gangs that profit from it are drivers of a weakening faith in democratic institutions, bringing the rise of dangerous forms of political extremism—again, not just here but across Europe.
These conditions are fuelling nationalism and xenophobia throughout the democratic world, and the failure of mainstream democratic parties and Governments to deal with the question has played an important part in the installation by popular vote of authoritarian Governments, not just on our own continent but on others. It should be clear to everyone that if parties of the centre, centre-right and centre-left do not deal with this issue and all that flows from it, there is no shortage of parties on the political extremes that will be happy to do so—and if they are ushered in by discontent over migration, they will do much else besides.
The reason why I believe the Bill can only begin to touch the hem of the problem is that the policy challenge is broader and deeper than a simple question of law enforcement. It is the context created by the United Nations refugee convention of 1951 and its protocol of 1967. The refugee convention was created in the shadow of the Second World War and was generally understood to be a response to the horrors of that conflict, particularly to the barriers faced by Jewish people seeking to flee Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The 1967 protocol broadened its terms to include within its compass the entire world.
I will make just one point to illustrate the historical context of the refugee convention and its striking contrast to the world of today. At the time of its enactment in 1951, it was considered that there were around 2.1 million refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2024, according to the UNHCR, there were no fewer than 122.6 million internally displaced persons around the world and no fewer than 43.7 million refugees. In addition, in the 74 years since the adoption of the convention, the world has become smaller, knowledge of conditions in developed countries more broadly available and travel over distance across seas and whole continents far easier. In the light of that, why would millions of people not seek better lives, more opportunities, and to escape with their families from violence and oppression? What could be more natural? Why would millions of people not avail themselves of the services of organised criminal gangs promising a better future in some newly reachable, unimaginably rich country?
It is in the light of the changes since 1951 that I believe the rubric of the refugee convention must be considered. It says that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution in their place of abode is entitled under the convention to asylum when they arrive in a contracting state, but that characterisation applies to literally tens of millions of people worldwide and may plausibly be claimed by tens of millions more.
So what are we to do? It is no answer just to shrug; again, we have to be realistic because at some stage we are going to have to deal with this. My own view is that we may have to revisit the refugee convention to make it fit for the modern world—to create an architecture that allows, for example, for the application of quotas between nations and of course the admission of those grievously at risk, so that we may fulfil our humanitarian function without damaging our own social and political cohesion. Discussions are already taking place across Europe about how arrangements under the European Convention on Human Rights may be reordered to allow countries more effectively to define and regulate their borders. As a strong supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court, I urge the Government to become an enthusiastic participant in those discussions.
As long ago as 2016, the distinguished Columbia University academic professor Mark Lilla wrote in his fine book The Once and Future Liberal that parties of the centre-left that espouse identity politics, that atomise people by race, by so-called privilege, sex and gender, building great hierarchies of polarisation and grievance, would never be able to create winning electoral coalitions across socioeconomic divides. Indeed, such an obviously misguided and solipsistic ideology would succeed only in alienating the left’s natural supporters and ushering in an age of populism. The result would be social division and the strengthening of political reaction. Although Professor Lilla once told me that the response of some of his university colleagues to his book was to label him a white supremacist, history has plainly proved him right. Today, a weak and confused response to an unprecedented surge in mass migration holds the same danger. That danger is particularly acute for parties of the centre-left, and we are a maximum of four years away from our next general election.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I too very much enjoyed the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper, who showed us a glint of steel, heavily disguised by wit and deftness of touch. I think we all look forward very much to hearing more from him, including on this Bill, when he can withdraw his sabre completely.
My overriding impression of this debate has been that there has been far more that unites us than divides us. In the full range of contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to my noble friend Lord Lilley and all in between—if they will accept being the bookends of this excellent debate—there is a general acceptance that it really is the legitimate expectation of those we serve as parliamentarians that the Government must be able to defend and control our borders, described in the Explanatory Notes as “a vital strategic asset”, and indeed to remove those with no right to be here. It really is as simple as that.
Despite our island geography, we clearly do not have security at the border, and successive Governments have failed in this regard. We really should move on from ownership of historical policies and, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his contribution to the previous debate on sentencing, take some of the heat and the blame game out of this. To move towards common approaches towards a complex problem is an admirable objective.
There really is a question of competence in government, and the public are tired of failure. People look to government, and indeed to Parliament, not for explanations about how difficult this is but for solutions. If the legal and regulatory framework, either domestically or internationally, is the obstacle, then, in partnership with our European partners and with other nations, we should seek to find proper, pragmatic, fair and humanitarian solutions that change the international regulatory regime. I listened with great interest to the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who gave an excellent explanation of the imperative so to do in a pragmatic and fair way.
There is much that is admirable in this Bill. An awful lot of it feels very technical. Some of it feels just a little presentational, such as talk of commanders without too much to command, which has already been noted. It does not contain some of the ID card proposals that my noble friend Lord Swire, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others talked about. Those would of course be much greater technical and policy moves than is contained in the Bill.
I suspect that much of our debates in Committee and thereafter on Report will be more about what is not in than what is in the Bill. I certainly welcome the pragmatic and sensible measures, many of which I was surprised are not already available to law enforcement authorities. However, I would like to ask the Minister what level of impact he believes the package of measures he is bringing forward in this Bill will have. There is a wealth of data on the situation; no doubt the Government have undertaken detailed analysis on the projected efficacy on the combination of these initiatives. What are the targets for improvements? What are the KPIs which the border security commander will be tasked with delivering? What does success look like?
In order to discuss the solution, one first has to understand the problem. People are travelling through numerous European safe countries before making the extremely hazardous trip across the channel to access the UK. Can the Minister respond in detail—if he does not have time this evening, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me—on the factors in the intelligence the Government have which they believe drive people to risk their lives and those of their children and families to come to the UK rather than to stay in another safe country, namely France? This may be in terms of how they are treated when they arrive, the opportunity to remain in the UK, benefits when they settle here and any other factors that he considers relevant. We need to have a proper understanding of that in order to work out what the solution is.
The biggest issue is clearly the perverse incentive which rewards those who come here through illicit means. Until we can make a statement, backed up, supported by and compliant with international law, that if people come to the UK through illegal means, they will extremely prejudice their changes of staying in the country, we are not going to win and will undoubtedly fail.
Much has been made of the Australian example and the efficacy of its deterrent measures. I note a statement made by Rear Admiral Justin Jones, then commander of the Australian Maritime Border Command in a public video in 2022. He said, “Australia is resolute. Our border protection policies will not change. No one who attempts to travel illegally by boat will be allowed to settle here. No matter who you are or where you are from, our borders are closed to illegal migration. The only way to Australia is with a valid visa. You have zero change with illegal migration”. That is an interesting comparison, but the emphasis is on politicians in the United Kingdom and our European partner nations to look at the international regulatory settlement together to come up with a solution.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I declare the support I receive from RAMP and start by warmly welcoming the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and partial repeal of the Illegal Migration Act.
However, I share the disappointment expressed by many organisations—I am grateful for their briefings—that the Bill does not go further in repealing the whole of the latter and parts of the Nationality and Borders Act. The Law Society, for instance, describes the latter as
“a detrimental piece of legislation”
that will become
“the default directive in many places”.
Could my noble friend the Minister explain why the Bill leaves in place a number of provisions in both those Acts that we roundly condemned at the time?
In particular, why are we retaining Section 12 of the IMA? To quote the UN High Commissioner for Refugees it
“leaves in place a risk of arbitrary detention of asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons”.
Why are we retaining Section 59 which, in denying claims from countries deemed safe, ignores—again to quote the UNHCR—
“the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim”
thereby giving
“rise to a risk of refoulement”?
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that
“children and young people are particularly at risk”
because Section 59 denies them
“proper consideration of their vulnerabilities”.
The RMCC, with support from the British Association of Social Workers, is also critical of the retention of the age assessment provisions of the NBA and calls for their repeal. The RMCC points out that neither the National Age Assessment Board nor the development of so-called scientific age assessment methods—which, as already noted, have been widely criticised—has tackled the key problem of children being wrongly treated as adults on arrival.
I was therefore alarmed to read in the parallel immigration White Paper of plans to explore
“scientific and technological methods to ensure adults are not wrongly identified as children”.
It is worthy of Alice in “Through the Looking-Glass”. I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend for the constructive meeting we had with members of the RMCC recently to discuss age assessment. He will not be surprised to hear that I plan to table amendments on this issue.
Some of those children wrongly identified as adults could be prosecuted under the new criminal offences contained in the Bill and end up spending months in adult prisons. Concerns have been raised more widely by a number of organisations, including the Law Society and the UNHCR, about these provisions, which in their breadth and vagueness, risk criminalising both vulnerable adults and children who are risking their lives in search of safety. This exposes the gaping hole in the Bill which, as already noted, is the absence of any provision to expand safe routes. The safe routes coalition, while recognising the need to tackle the exploitation of unsafe routes by smuggling gangs, which is the Bill’s main focus, argues that it is missing a golden opportunity to address why people are taking these dangerous journeys.
I cannot understand why the Government appear to be so deaf to the widespread calls to improve safe routes for children and others, including from the APPG for refugees, of which I am a member. Instead, the immigration White Paper includes plans that will weaken the family reunion route. The White Paper also includes proposals to double the length of time most people will need to wait before they can apply for settlement. This is not the place to argue against this damaging proposal, but it would be remiss of me not to mention it, given the large number of emails I am receiving from those already on the five-year route to remain.
In the absence of any clarification about whether the new rule will apply to those already here, the emails express acute distress, a sense of betrayal and a loss of trust in the UK’s integrity and consistency. As already asked for, can my noble friend at the very least clarify whether those people will indeed now have to work here for 10 years before being able to apply for settlement, having come here in good faith on the assumption of five years?
The welcome repeal in the Bill of Sections 31 to 35 of the IMA, which rendered refugees who enter the country by irregular means ineligible for British citizenship, has now been undermined by the administrative sleight of hand that achieves the same outcome through changes to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance. Having welcomed the repeal as
“a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”,
the UNHCR expresses concern that the new guidance
“may result in breaches of Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention”,
which, it argues, is central to the convention’s “object and purpose”. It recommends that the guidance be revisited
“to ensure that it is applied in a manner consistent with the UK’s international obligations”.
The Law Society echoed the Article 31 point and noted that
“this is a significant change in policy which has been made with no consultation and therefore no scrutiny”.
In conclusion, although I repeat my welcome for the repeal of many of the damaging provisions made by the previous Government, I wish I could welcome this Bill unequivocally. As the daughter of a refugee immigrant, I welcome the fact that I live on an island not of strangers but of diverse groups who have enriched our lives. We have a responsibility to them, and to those who seek to come to our country in future, to ensure that we build a fair and inclusive immigration and asylum/refugee system.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill so succinctly. I welcome my noble friend Lord Harper, who is not in his place, and wish him very well in this House.
The Bill seems to have two aims and to be speaking to two different audiences. One of the aims is to control the borders by tackling the criminal gangs who ferry migrants to the shores of this country. A number of clauses—Clauses 1 to 12—will introduce a new Border Security Command to tackle the gangs. There will be new offences—in Clauses 13 to 18 and 21 to 23—with new powers and data-sharing powers. The Bill aims to address the very wide concern in this country about levels of immigration, both legal and illegal or irregular, but it aims also to tackle the asylum and immigration system, to strengthen and build confidence in the border system, and—to do that—to repeal certain parts of Conservative legislation.
That part of the Bill is addressed to people on the left who see the streamlining and processing of the asylum system as paramount. It is not a matter of tightening the rules, and I welcome the Minister’s outlining some of the more peripheral ways in which these will be strengthened—in Clauses 41, 43 and 45, for example. It is also not a matter of reviewing the international agreements from the post-World War II period for Europe to protect people who were displaced by the war, by the defeat of Germany and by the new arrangements with the Soviet Union to give it some sphere of influence over eastern Europe.
From the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on the Cross Benches, we have heard something of the numbers involved then. We are speaking about 2.1 million people of European origin, displaced mainly in Europe. However, we are now looking at a world where, globally, people are on the move. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is 400 million refugees. These are very significant numbers. He rightly alluded to the 1951 refugee convention and some of the international framework of law. Many people like to pooh-pooh those of us who feel it needs to be reviewed because it is totally unsuitable for today’s global world, with millions of people on the move. Therefore, I will concentrate on what kind of figures we are dealing with in this country alone for immigration and asylum. I fear that streamlining and processing the system is not enough to help reduce the overall numbers.
In the year in which the new Government came to power, there were 224,742 asylum cases in the system in June 2024. For the year ending March 2025, around 50% of claims had been granted at an initial decision, giving 45,084 people refugee protection, according to Home Office figures. Some 40% of asylum claims were granted between January and March. This is a significantly higher rate than historically; the rate was 29% in the period from 2001 to 2018. It was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than in 2022, and it includes almost all small boat immigrants, whose claims by and large tend to be successful—77% of them.
With such numbers arriving after the Conservative Government’s measures to deter, I am very worried about Clauses 37 and 38, which are going to repeal those parts of the Act that acted as a deterrent. The figures speak for themselves. In 2023 the numbers of people arriving—they are just astonishing—fell to 36,699, a figure substantially lower than the 54,702 the previous year. I cannot think it right to say that the measures that the Conservative Government introduced, the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, did not serve as a deterrent. Those numbers do speak. I agree that it is too late for Rwanda, but certainly there are the measures in the Illegal Migration Act.
To close, I welcome those parts of the Bill that aim to strengthen the borders, strengthen control of the borders and bring in offences, but I rather fear that they will not be strong enough to deter illegal migration. I fear that in trying to speak to two different audiences, we will end up pleasing neither those who want a more streamlined immigration system that will allow more asylum applications and more claims to be granted nor those in the country who, by and large, want immigration, legal and illegal, drastically cut.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, colleagues in the other place and in this House have raised concerns about this Bill—from the impact it may have on the victims of human trafficking, undermining the work done and progress made in that area, much of it led by my noble friend Lady May, to concerns over the provisions that may criminalise asylum seekers rather than those who seek to exploit them, the expansion of counterterrorism measures and the lack of an attempt to deal with the vexed issue of no safe routes for those fleeing persecution.
I am sure that many of these and other concerns around the Bill will be debated in detail in Committee—but today I want to focus on how we debate this policy area, the consequences of what we do in Parliament and in government and its real impact on people’s lives. I do not put forward an ideological position on migration: I am neither for open borders nor for ever-increasing draconian measures that seem not to achieve their stated aim, instead often raising the temperature on this issue and then agitating further a disappointed public.
In a former life, I have represented both the Home Office and applicants in immigration proceedings. However, I am pragmatic enough to acknowledge, as I presume most in this House would, our demand for a constant supply of a Labour force over decades to underpin our economy. It has meant that we have tolerated the numbers. Like most in our country, I simply want a system that works, does not oversell and underdeliver, ensures that we meet our international obligations and is in line with our stated values.
Migration, the movement of people, which both in the UK and around the world is overwhelmingly legal, has always existed—the movement of people between different geographical areas across boundaries during the years as seasons changed; the movement within state boundaries from rural to urban areas in recent centuries; and the movement in the past of large numbers of Europeans, from the global North to the global South, the global East and elsewhere. From the mid-1800s to the First World War, it is estimated that up to 20 million people migrated from the United Kingdom. Over a period of 80 years nearly 50% of the British population moved, travelling to parts of the British Empire, colonising lands and establishing settled communities.
This was not unusual; the same pattern was seen across most European nations. Some 48 million indigenous—to use the description used by my noble friend Lord Lilley—Europeans left Europe to become permanent communities across the globe and now rightly call themselves indigenous there. These numbers and percentages far exceed the subsequent migration back from many of our old colonies, including many like my grandfather, who some 70 years ago arrived in the UK, starting his “on these islands” relationship with Britain, his actual relationship having started many decades before then as a subject in British colonial India, which included over two decades of service in the British Indian Army. He was the embodiment of what the now Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, passionately said in 2018 in the other place:
“We are here … because you were there”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/18; col. 9WH.]
Indeed, it was only after the Second World War that Europe stopped becoming the source of most migration, starting to become a migration destination.
I raise these issues for context, for proportionality and for us to consider the statements we make and will make as these changes are introduced and the Bill passes through both Houses; statements such as those suggesting, as many have done already, including in the Explanatory Notes, that what we are seeing is unusual or unprecedented. It is neither, if we look at history. Facts, stats and language matter: as my noble friend Lord Harper said in his excellent maiden speech, tough measures in moderate language. It matters because it leads to better debates, better policy and better policy-making, and ensures that migration policy remains just that, not a cloak for culture wars and division.
We need to be mindful of the impact on all communities in the UK and how what we say in positions of power can green-light dangerous behaviours in those with malign intent. It has consequences for cohesion and can become a platform for extremist views. How we have developed our policies in the past has not necessarily worked. The race riots post-Southport showed us how quickly people from racial minority communities became migrants, became asylum seekers, became illegals, became security risks, and how our fellow citizens, British Muslims, became fair game. After all the sloganising during the Brexit decision, we neither took back control of our borders nor reduced the numbers coming into our country, with legal migration increasing from around 500,000 to 700,000 annually to 1.3 million in 2022 and 1.2 million in 2023. However passionate and at times inflammatory the rhetoric, not only did the policy of restricting and reducing numbers simply not happen; in reality, the opposite did.
In conclusion, I urge noble Lords to be careful in the language we use during these debates; to be accurate in our facts; to base our arguments on evidence, not ideology; to focus on outcomes, not political posturing; to tell the full story on migration; to speak of numbers and needs, not composition and culture; and to find a way to talk about migration that is inclusive of all our fellow countrymen and women. We owe it to all of them to get this right.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I speak on this Bill as someone who has spent much of my political life focused on home affairs, justice and border security, including as a former Immigration Minister and as a spokesman in the European Parliament. I begin by welcoming the Government’s renewed focus on these vital matters, but I urge Ministers to draw a clear and consistent distinction between immigration and asylum. They are two very different issues, each requiring its own approach and solution.
Our immigration policy must be rules-based, fair to those who follow the system and firmly rooted in the national interest, supporting our economy, our public services and the social fabric of this country. But please remember: immigration, as opposed to asylum, is entirely in the hands of Governments. They set priorities, categories and numbers. And please do not be deceived by the term “net migration”. Regardless of numbers entering the country, if more people leave, the figures come down; if fewer leave, they go up. Too many valuable people leaving is also surely not in our interests.
Asylum must be firm but fair. We must honour international commitments and offer protection to those who flee from persecution. We must also be resolute in removing those whose claims have failed swiftly, humanely and without unnecessary delay. Justice must be seen to be done, and public confidence depends on it. Immigration, when managed responsibly, is a source of strength for society. However, long-term success requires more border controls; it requires integration, communication and trust. That is why I encourage the Government to return responsibility for community and race relations to the Home Office so that it sits alongside immigration policy and supports a more coherent and co-ordinated approach and ensures—as I tried to do—better integration and acceptance of those admitted to our country.
The number of irregular small boat arrivals rose by 22% in the year up to March 2025. That is a sharp increase despite the growing success of the French authorities to deter them. The public are right to expect firm action, but the loss of legal routes and facilities at UK representations around the globe has certainly not helped. More must be done to disrupt the criminal gangs to end the perilous journeys and secure our borders. However, lasting solutions can come only through serious practical co-operation with our neighbours, not schemes that involve sending asylum claimants thousands of miles away for processing—which are, at best, legally questionable, expensive and ineffective.
I note the Government’s interest in creating overseas hubs as temporary locations only for failed asylum seekers but not for applicants. This might be helpful, but it should never replace the return of such people to their source countries. Applying pressure on the Governments of those which are reluctant to receive back and protect their citizens is an appropriate and at times necessary action. It has been done before with positive effect.
Acquiring asylum is a precious thing with clear criteria. Over the last few years, we seem to have been extending improperly those criteria, leading to far greater numbers being granted asylum than I think is correct under the terms of the 1951 convention on refugees. Although I fully appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, a short time ago as to some changing circumstances since 1951, there have recently been signs of stricter enforcement and better understanding and interpretation of the rules, which is welcome.
In that context, I welcome the UK-EU common understanding, particularly part 6 on irregular immigration, which rightly highlights the importance of information sharing, something I have long championed. The previous Government began developing I-LEAP, a platform to improve data exchange at the border. That work must continue and accelerate, and I urge Ministers to prioritise and, crucially, pursue renewed co-operation with European partners to restore UK access to the Schengen Information System, which I played a part in introducing.
SIS II is the most widely used and largest security and border management information sharing system in Europe. In 2019—the last year the UK had access—it was checked by British police over 603 million times. That level of operational intelligence is essential to protecting our citizens and securing our borders. Its loss, with real-time access, was one of the many negatives in our leaving the EU.
We now have an opportunity to modernise our systems, to act with purpose and to rebuild trust in how we manage our borders. That means processing and removing failed asylum seekers in a timely manner, stopping dangerous crossings and working in genuine partnership with allies. If we are serious about border security, we must be serious about the tools and co-operation that make it possible.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on their aim of repealing the Rwanda Act and some of its modifications to the Illegal Migration Act, both of which were despicable pieces of legislation and contributed to the widespread negativity about supporting people who are escaping conflict and other dangers.
If we want a model for how to treat people fleeing war zones, we have it in the way we supported Ukrainian nationals seeking refuge in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. Ukrainians were able to pass the residence test to receive fast and substantial help, including a temporary leave to remain if they left because of the Russian invasion. They could work here and apply for universal credit if they did not have a job, could not work or were on a low income. Ukrainian refugees were generally presented in a positive light by the media and in Parliament.
What we see here is the humanity that we should expect from a relatively wealthy country giving support to people whose lives are in danger. We offered a safe space to live, where children could go to school and where parents could legitimately work and provide for their families.
To echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the terrible war taking place in Sudan, of course Sudan was, in effect, a British colony, and the divisions it helped to create resulted in decades of on-off war. The UK is an obvious place for Sudanese refugees to turn to because of its colonial history and because English is one of the two national languages. In return, the UK recognises the terrible situation there and that there are genuine grounds for accepting claims for asylum.
Have any special measures been put in place to allow Sudanese in danger to come safely to the UK? No. A hopeful asylum seeker must first be able to arrive in the UK. If they use the standard visitor’s visa, they must apply three months before travel. They cannot apply as an asylum seeker in advance, even if they have family or other support waiting for them. Instead, they will have to find a route to the UK and on arrival expect an interrogation, to be fingerprinted and treated as a potential criminal. I ask the Minister: why are the two cases treated so differently? Are there deserving and undeserving people fleeing war?
For many years now, immigration has been treated as a criminal activity. I was shocked when I attended a Labour Party National Policy Forum some 25 years ago to find that immigration policy was included in the crime and justice section. No one could tell me why that was the case.
Unfortunately, the Bill reinforces the idea that people coming to this country are a threat and a danger rather than part of the centuries of movement of people around the world described so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Many of our predecessors came here in that way. I accept the need for border controls, but safe routes must be part of those controls. Currently, we only pay lip service to helping even the most vulnerable threatened groups and individuals.
In our attempt to keep people out and deny them safe and legal routes to arrive in the UK, we have helped to create the space for criminals to take over immigration. The appeal for safe routes is a recurring theme in many of the briefings provided by NGOs and campaigners, and in fact in the speeches today. The Safe Routes Coalition briefing paper argues:
“When safe routes are well run and well managed, they can be very effective and reduce dangerous journeys, such as channel crossings”.
The Bill can be strengthened to improve the role that safe routes can play in ensuring that the UK offers controlled and sustainable ways to support refugees fleeing war and persecution.
Amnesty International points out that one of the consequences of not having safe routes is that refugees will continue to endure severe hardship and trauma in their search for safety, even when having family in the UK or other strong connections here.
We must look closely at the Bill with a view to including provision for safe routes, not only because this is fair and humane but to stop the need for genuine asylum seekers having to deal with criminal gangs and put their lives in danger to have access to what we surely all believe is a human right.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. These matters are not new; indeed, it is now 24 years since I co-founded Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University.
I listened with great interest to the Minister’s clear summary of the Government’s proposals. Sadly, I have to say to him that they will not work. They will not bring the scale of net migration down to a level that is acceptable to the public. Indeed, the Bill barely scratches the surface of the massive problems that our country now faces as a result of the enormous increase in immigration over recent years. We now know that net migration was approaching 1,000,000 in 2023 and was about 400,000 in 2024. These massive numbers are completely without precedent in our history and will have very serious consequences for public services such as health and education, as well as for demand for housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out earlier.
More importantly, these numbers point to the prospect that, in the foreseeable future, the white British will become a minority in their own country. It is already the case that all of our population increase is a result of immigration. Meanwhile, births to the present white majority have been very low for some years. They could increase, of course, but there is currently no sign of that. Birth rates among immigrant communities vary but are usually higher—sometimes much higher—than those of the white British.
That said, the major factor by far is now net migration. Even if it is held at the current figure of 430,000 a year, we can expect the white British majority to become a minority in the UK about 30 years from now. Of course, that number—30—is crucial. It depends on what other numbers you use in your calculation, but this is, in essence, a likely outcome if no serious measures are taken.
The Prime Minister recently had the courage to put his toe into this delicate water when he spoke of the risk of our becoming “an island of strangers”. He was right, and the public feel in their bones that he was right. We now need serious consideration of the policies required to put the brakes on this process. These include having the political courage to set a clear target for net migration, backed up by specific measures; I regret to conclude that the Bill before us today will achieve virtually nothing of the kind now needed.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I offer qualified support for the Bill. I do so in the firm belief that, unless we seize this moment to regain credible control over all forms of migration, we shall betray both the national interest and the public trust. Regrettably, my own party failed to properly deal with the issue in government and to honour the pledges made in general elections between 2010 and 2019 to lower immigration—a policy currently supported by over 80% of the public in polls. Hence net migration increased massively in the last three Parliaments. We also did nothing to address the pernicious misuse of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In fairness, the Bill does give Parliament a coherent framework: new powers for intelligence-led interceptions, faster inadmissibility decisions and tougher criminal offences for those who facilitate irregular entry. Yet legislation alone is not enough unless we confront the scale of the problem with unflinching candour. The net migration figure in 2022 was 764,000—that was the peak—but even last year the figure was 431,000. That number of people is equivalent to a city the size of Bristol, yet we built only 218,000 homes in England last year.
Some 81% of those migrants were from outside Europe, presenting major problems for integration and challenges related to shared identity, values, culture, history and way of life. Only 14% came to work, while 149,000 were family dependants. Figures released over the weekend show that over £900 million is claimed by foreign national households—one in six households—each month in universal credit, which is barely two months’ worth of the winter fuel allowance.
Mass uncontrolled migration is bad for the economy. It is astonishing that per capita GDP, at $49,464 in 2023, is less than it was in 2008—17 years ago. No civilised country can absorb such numbers year after year without acute pressure on housing, health care and social cohesion, particularly in the very towns and cities that feel least heard by liberal, metropolitan opinion-formers—who are of course well represented in your Lordships’ House.
At the illegal end of the spectrum, the channel crisis persists. More than 36,000 people arrived by small boat in 2024—up a quarter on 2023—and the death toll tragically reached 77, the worst year on record. On Saturday, as we heard, over 1,200 people crossed the channel—so much for smashing the gangs. Behind every dinghy is an organised-crime business model that mocks our sovereignty and imperils vulnerable lives.
The key question is: will the Bill be a real, effective and significant deterrent for people traffickers? The Government’s pointless and performative repeal of the safety of Rwanda Act—while begging last month for the support of the Albanian Prime Minister, in vain, for a resettlement hub—was entirely unnecessary and predictable, and destroyed such a deterrence. Meanwhile, the fiscal costs mount inexorably. Hotel accommodation for failed asylum seekers and those in the ever-lengthening backlog now drains £8 million every single day—money that could have trained 260 nurses or built three primary schools each week. Labour promised to reduce the number of asylum seeker hotels, but they have increased in number since July 2024.
That said, the Government deserve some credit for establishing the Border Security Command and their efforts to develop renewed bilateral returns agreements. But the command must be given teeth: it needs real-time data-sharing across MI5, the National Crime Agency and Border Force, and an unflinching mandate to disrupt the smugglers’ logistics upstream, not merely a mop up on our southern beaches.
Crucially, the Bill must address legal migration. Skilled worker and student routes, laudable in their intent, have become porous. Employers in the care sector are now permitted to import labour at a minimum salary that undercuts our own workforce, while overseas students—commended for their tuition fees—import 150,000 dependants a year. This is not an immigration system; it is an open invitation. Even the Defence Secretary said this week that the Government have lost control of our borders.
We need to insert a statutory annual cap on gross immigration, set by an affirmative resolution of both Houses, for work and study visas allocated by auction, to ensure that they are allocated to the areas that need them most. We need a new system of sureties for visa holders that ensures a financial penalty if they do not leave the country when their visas expire. We should require the Migration Advisory Committee to publish full displacement and wage-suppression effects, not just labour-market shortages. We need to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the ECHR where they would thwart the deportation of serious criminals or those who have entered clandestinely.
The Times editorial was quite right on Saturday to excoriate the Attorney-General’s ill-judged and intemperate comments on those questioning the workings of the ECHR and to point out that many European countries are seeking sincerely to reform the convention to eject illegal immigrants and strengthen the asylum rules. I wonder why, if the Minister will answer the question, the UK has declined to support such an effort—for what reason? These measures are not draconian. They are proportionate, democratic and entirely consistent with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, properly interpreted, notwithstanding the fetishisation of international law by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and other noble Lords.
This is a necessary start, but without the amendments I have referenced it will be neither sufficient nor credible. We have a brief window—perhaps the last in a generation—to restore a balanced immigration policy that is fair, lawful and, above all, trusted by the British people. In conclusion, I commend in principle the Bill, but give notice that I and other noble Lords will table amendments to deliver the effective border control and the sustainable legal migration regime that this country both expects and deserves.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government’s aim and the purpose of the Bill, which is primarily to stop people crossing the channel from France in dangerous boats. Since this route was exploited by the criminal gangs a few years ago, almost 100 men, women and children have tragically lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel. In the Mediterranean Sea, thousands have perished over the years trying to reach Europe. These organised criminal gangs, who profit from the desperation of vulnerable people, must be stopped by whatever means necessary.
This is one of the most tragic aspects of our time: people fleeing poor countries, seeking a better life for their families, and escaping authoritarian and corrupt regimes. I speak as the son of an immigrant who, in the 1940s, left his country and moved from place to place before finally settling in the UK, in 1957. I know first hand the feelings of these refugees—I cannot help but feel empathy for them.
This refugee crisis is not new. Throughout history, thousands have fled their own country to escape prosecution and mistreatment. It saddens me to say that some politicians in Europe have used the misfortune and desperation of these refugees to advance their own political careers. They have stirred up hatred and xenophobia to win votes, rather than showing understanding and compassion. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have used these unfortunate people as a political football, instead of treating them with dignity and humanity.
However, as I have often said in your Lordships’ House, the UK remains one of the most tolerant, inclusive and welcoming countries in the world. I am proud that my father settled here and that his great-grandchildren are now part of Great British society.
Returning to the substantive issue of this debate, while I support the core intent of the Bill, we must be mindful of unintended consequences. As noble Lords know, I am not a solicitor—I usually leave such matters to the great legal minds in your Lordships’ House. However, here are some of my observations as a layman and long-standing supporter of Amnesty International and a staunch believer in the European Convention on Human Rights. I always place great value on the human rights and well-being of the underdog. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify some of these points.
One of my concerns is that some of the new offences in the Bill could inadvertently criminalise genuine asylum seekers and deter victims of modern slavery from coming forward. Does the Bill comply with the UK’s international obligation under the 1951 refugee convention regarding the rights of the individual seeking asylum?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to expanding safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as an alternative or complementary approach to the enforcement measures in the Bill? Thirdly, what provisions are there to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are not inadvertently disqualified from protection or deterred from engaging with authority due to the new immigration offences or powers? Fourthly, does the Bill ensure robust judicial oversight of detention decisions, and does it prevent the disproportionate detention of the individual seeking asylum?
Finally, can the Minister assure me that the sharing of customs information by HMRC and the sharing of trailer registration information from the DVLA to catch organised immigration criminals will not result in a snoopers’ charter affecting the wider public?
While we all want to stop the ruthless smuggler gangs and save lives, we must also uphold our proud tradition of compassion and human rights. A just and human approach alongside firm border security is the only way forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an entertaining maiden speech—although, like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I stand fully ready to vote to abolish myself.
I was as disturbed as many others were by the Prime Minister’s warning that without strong migration rules,
“we risk becoming an island of strangers”.
Of course we need a well-managed asylum and immigration system. But not only is that kind of inflammatory language alarming and unhelpful; neither recent political statements nor any measures in the Bill do anything to promote the integration that would seek to make newcomers well-settled residents and contributing citizens. I much appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.
Indeed, much alarm has been created by the heralding of tougher requirements for obtaining both settlement and citizenship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described. I will never understand why, having allowed people to legally reside, any Government think it useful to make it harder for them to convert that into permanent settlement and then citizenship, which anchors their belonging here.
I would love to say more about other parts of the Bill, but I want to concentrate on European aspects, and my noble friends are well covering other topics.
The common understanding which resulted from the UK-EU summit two weeks ago pledged to reinforce co-operation on law enforcement, including through Europol, on analysis of threats, and on exchange of information and operational action.
Although we cannot yet go back to the golden era of British pre-eminence in Europol, when one of our nationals held the directorship of that agency for a decade, we can encourage maximum exploitation of these opportunities, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about seeking access to SIS II. My Benches will table some amendments on Europol, such as equipping the National Crime Agency and police forces to participate in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, establishing joint taskforces, and requiring the border commander to meet the director of Europol.
I want mainly to talk about Clause 42, on EU citizens, and I welcome the intention to clear up some of the muddle of the past caused by the way in which the EU settlement scheme was devised and implemented. But I fear that further confusion may lie ahead—even another Windrush—due to the Government’s reluctance to jettison the whole of the baggage of the past.
The problem comes because Clause 42 holds back from declaring that everyone given EU settled status actually comes within the citizens’ rights provisions of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the EEA and Swiss equivalents, such as the ability to rely on the direct effect of those rights. It says only that all those granted the right to stay under the UK’s EU settlement scheme will be treated as if they had such rights.
The UK’s EU settlement scheme was in one sense generous, in that it swept up EU citizens simply because they had been living in the UK for the requisite time. But in doing so, successive UK Governments acted on a presumption—although this is contested—that some did not have rights under the withdrawal agreements because they had not been, in the jargon, “exercising their treaty rights”, which broadly involved being a worker rather than a non-employed person.
No actual test was applied, even though the withdrawal agreement allowed that, so EU citizens were never told their legal status. As the Independent Monitoring Authority, the watchdog for the rights of EU citizens in the UK, described it in initially welcoming Clause 42:
“There are people who have status under the EUSS who may not be entitled to rights under the Agreements. This is a complex area”—
you are telling me—
“but there is a lack of clarity as to who has rights under the Agreements and who does not … The concern is that there could be potential instances where it would matter whether a citizen with EUSS status does have rights under the Agreements or not. In these situations, citizens who are within the true cohort”—
I think your Lordships gather what that means—
“might need to re-prove they were residing in the UK in accordance with EU free movement rules at the end of 2020. As time goes by it may become more and more difficult for citizens to find the relevant evidence, such as payslips, to prove they met the free movement rules at the end of 2020. We do not know what implications this could have in the future for these citizens or future generations of citizens.”
Are your Lordships getting echoes of another scenario?
I imagine that the IMA thought that Clause 42 would wash away the relevance of this distinction and the possible need to go back and establish rights from years ago, but the absence of legal clarity identified by the IMA remains. Despite good intentions, past gremlins could pop up in future and catch people out precisely because the legal position has been left as unclear as it was in 2020.
That is no doubt why the Independent Monitoring Authority now seems to have had a bit of a rethink, commenting 10 days’ ago in regard to the Immigration White Paper that
“the vast majority of the proposals that the government is consulting on should not affect the majority of citizens with EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) status who have rights under the Agreements.”
Quite a few caveats there.
I have to finish, but as Sir Humphrey might have put it, it is not only unwise but brave, Minister, to risk recreating the Windrush miscarriage of justice. I suggest that the Government should take the wiser course, even if it goes against every instinct of the Home Office, and junk past practices and start with a clean sheet. Hence, my Benches will be tabling amendments, which I hope might be signed by others, to try to get the Government to do just that.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I thought he was not going to be in his place, so, in his absence, I was going to risk his reputation by saying that when he was Transport Minister, I think the unions always had a good-faith relationship with him.
I welcome the repeal of the scheme that saw £700 million of taxpayers’ money squandered on sending four volunteers back to Rwanda. We should also commend the Government’s determination to crack down on organised crime which trades in human desperation. Those gangsters are not the only ones who have raked it in. The likes of Serco have also profited hugely from past failures to process asylum claims quickly and effectively, so I am pleased to see this Government tackling the backlog, which not only racked up hotel bills but left traumatised refugees in limbo, barred from work and unable to contribute to society. Labour’s approach must be clear: we punish the villains, not the victims. We need a system that is not only firm but fair and humane too.
This Bill focuses primarily on people who come across the channel in small boats. However, as we have heard, that is a small part of the immigration picture. In the second half of the 20th century, Irish, Caribbean and Asian immigrants helped to build our NHS and transport system, often facing racism and discrimination for their trouble. This century, we face the challenge of an ageing population and falling birth rate; unfilled vacancies, not least in health and social care and in construction; and universities, which critically rely on international students’ fees.
We do need to tackle the root causes of people’s concerns about migration. There are radical right forces, well organised and resourced, which seek to scapegoat migrants for all of Britain’s ills. However, migrants did not slash funding for skills training, schools, hospitals and youth services. They did not sell off our utilities and abandon whole towns to rot. They did not neglect building council houses in favour of luxury flats or jack up private rents. The blame lies elsewhere and the remedy, including urgent investment in our public infrastructure, is clear.
Alongside this Bill, the Government need a clear strategy to ensure that we are welcoming to newcomers and that we are good neighbours to each other. Let us remember that, before funding was cut, free classes in English for speakers of other languages helped to build community cohesion and friendships.
I want to raise three specific issues. The first is modern slavery. The Bill repeals many of the most harmful provisions contained in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 but retains provisions—notably Section 29—which would disqualify modern slavery victims from support, safety and protection because of detention or convictions which had resulted from their exploitation. This could put the UK in conflict with its duties under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and put vulnerable people at risk of re-trafficking. As well as repealing those provisions, will the Minister consider granting modern slavery victims who are in the national referral scheme the dignity of a right to work?
Secondly, the Bill makes no mention of safe routes for asylum seekers, yet people risk only their lives taking dangerous journeys to reach sanctuary and loved ones, when safe routes are not available. Also, the current family reunion rules are complex and, for many unaccompanied children, almost impossible to access. To break the people smugglers’ business model, will the Minister consider, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Bryan, building on the success of the humanitarian scheme for Ukraine to create more safe routes?
Thirdly, regarding workers, those who genuinely care about stopping those employers who abuse migrant labour to drive down wages should back the Employment Rights Bill. It must include more fair pay agreements, so that everyone, wherever they were born, gets a fair rate for the job. In the wake of extreme exploitation scandals, including in social care, domestic service, food production and the fishing industry, can the Minister ensure that there is a proper risk assessment of employer exploitation before sponsorship licences are issued? Can he also ensure that, as in Australia, workers on visas have the right to report bad employers without fearing the risk of destitution or deportation as a result?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard already today, there are serious concerns in the country about the security of our borders. Of course, this is motivated by keeping ourselves safe, but it is also motivated by wanting to make sure that those who deserve to claim asylum and are refugees who want to travel here are able to use a fair system, that they have a good reception when they arrive and that we are able to plan for a larger population. I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not at all clear that we are managing migration in such a way that that we are able to plan for it in any great way. I will give a couple of examples of where this really matters.
I get increasingly frustrated in this place. Almost every day, we hear of a Government, this one or the previous, being blamed for things. That is the nature of politics but, just last week, we heard accusations that it was someone’s fault that nine more reservoirs are needed, and we have regular complaints about lack of housing and lack of electricity. There are many other things that we do not seem able to cope with.
I suspect that one reason is that our population has grown so quickly. When I took over the Met in 2011, the population of London was about 7.4 million; by the time I left, it was 8.4 million and, today, it is about 9 million. A significant number of the people who have come to the UK have ended up in our major economic centres, such as London. This is a very significant shift. Some of the symptoms of that growth were that, in places such as Newham, around 50,000 people were living in what are called “beds in sheds”. These places were not designed to hold people—they were garages that had things added on. When people are living in such conditions, you are just waiting for epidemics or other things to happen. I am afraid that, unless we plan well to make sure that all the facilities are there, everyone suffers. Probably those who suffer most are the migrants who arrive but who we did not anticipate in the way that we should have.
There are two major categories of migration in this country. The first is legal migration, which is allowing those who want to enter our country for economic reasons and asylum seekers or refugees who need our help. At some point, the previous Government got things a little wrong with legal migration because, by some of the measures that they took, legal migration went out of control and up to around 800,000. The noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned at the time that some of the levers—it is not easy to predict how people will react to them—were probably set at the wrong level. The previous Government changed those levels, as mentioned earlier. This Government are now using those levers to make sure that legal migration is more under control.
This Bill, however, is about illegal migration and improving how we can stop it. I think it has some good ideas, but I am honestly not convinced that it is comprehensive, forensic or ruthless enough to deal with all the issues that we face now and will face in the coming years. I have four tests for this Bill to see whether it will improve the situation in which around 1,000 people a day have been seen to cross the channel to land on our south coast.
My first test is whether the Bill will deter people who have no right to be here from trying to get here. We have said that we do not want them to cross the border. At the moment, there are thousands of people each year who broadly say, “We do not respect your rules but are confident that, having crossed the border, we will not be removed”. I do not see any great change in this Bill that will affect their motivation.
My second test is what happens to people who have arrived here and been found to have no claim to remain, particularly where they have a criminal record. I have no confidence that those whom we wish to remove will be removed, even where they have a criminal record. Often in this country, we do not know the backgrounds of the people who are here, because we do not know their identity. Consequently, we are not very familiar with some of the things that they have done or been involved in, in the past.
My third test is whether the Bill will deter and detect those who commit organised crime and arrange for people to bypass the rules for profit. I see very little in the Bill that shows me that the Government will ruthlessly and massively go after the assets of the criminals. If we can take the profit from the business, we can exert some control. There are some incremental steps in the Bill, but it does not convince me that we will see more than marginal improvements in the seizure of criminals’ assets.
My fourth test is whether there is anything in the Bill that will allow the courts to distinguish better between valid and invalid claims for asylum. In particular, how will they either change the European Convention on Human Rights or its interpretation, which presently seems to give precedence to the failed asylum seeker or the convicted criminal against the rights of people who are properly using the legal system and the victims of crime?
In closing, I highlight a particular concern I have about the Bill. It has been mentioned already by the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Browne. The Border Security Commander is, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, a misnomer. The Border Security Command has no people to command, and the organisations that do have people to command are not commanded by it. At best, it tries to co-ordinate those who have a duty to manage our borders, which includes the border agency, the immigration service, the National Crime Agency, security services and local police forces. Each of those organisations is accountable for its own actions. The commander cannot order them to take any particular action. I am not persuaded that the commander having a board, as proposed by the Bill, will make any difference to that.
The Government found their leadership voice today on defence. They made an excellent announcement about our future defence and sent a clear message to our enemies. Does this Bill send the same clear message to the organisers of illegal migration? I am not convinced that it does. It needs to speak clearly about the profit they are making and the fact that if they continue there will be a serious penalty. At least two or three noble Lords have mentioned that if the Government do not do that, people like Reform benefit, which does not benefit many people at all. Unless we get some better answers to some of the things that I and others have identified, that is the way it will go.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Listening to the different views makes me think of saying, “Here we go again”. I asked the Library how many Bills there have been since I came into the other place in 1989 that contain the words “immigration”, “asylum” or “migration”. I remember a number of those debates. I was astonished to find that there have been 14 Bills since 1989 called things such as the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Each Government, including the Coalition Government, brought in different Bills. They all had the same words. I looked at some of the Home Secretaries’ Second Reading introductions to the Bills, and they all talked about how this was going to transform things, improve things, strengthen the borders and so on. Really, of course, if we are honest, none of them achieved what was promised.
The Minister, who knows I have huge respect for him, made a much franker opening by saying that, hopefully, some of the things in the Bill can make a difference. I welcome some of the measures, but we must face up to the fact that the world is changing. People keep telling me that it is, so why do we not genuinely look at changing the refugee convention and work out the bits of it we can work with and the bits we cannot?
We should also genuinely look at the European Court of Human Rights. Time has moved on, and things have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has already mentioned this, but I was very disappointed when our Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, accused anyone who said that we should talk about the European Court of Human Rights of working under some kind of Nazi ideology. I know he has apologised, but it was a very grave mistake.
We have to face up to the reality that nothing will change fundamentally until we have a look at those two ideas. We have seen over the years that United Kingdom judges—I know there are a lot of lawyers in this place, and they get upset when you criticise anyone in the legal profession—have adopted ever more expansive definitions of ECHR articles in immigration tribunals, including allowing dangerous criminals to stay here, giving all sorts of reasons why they should stay and ridiculous reasons why people should not be deported. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just Article 8 but Article 3—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything intended by the people who originally framed them.
Back in November 2021, shortly after I came into this place, I was lucky enough to have a debate on migration. It was, sadly, two days after 27 people were lost crossing the Channel—one of the biggest number of deaths that had happened. As I mentioned then, one noble Lord said to me before that debate, “I really don’t think we should be having this debate, because it’s going to be divisive”.
That is our problem. We have not been prepared to be honest, to face up to and talk about what people out there are talking about when they see pictures, as they saw over the weekend, of that very large number of predominantly young men. I went down to Dover during the previous Government with a group to see what was happening there. When you see all those young men coming off the boat, obviously relieved and pleased to be there and to be safe, and you realise that they are all 18 to 24 year-olds—yes, there might be one woman on the boat, or there might be a couple of babies that the criminal smugglers are very keen to put on board—the reality is that they cannot all be asylum seekers.
I know the figures that have been given. Supposedly 76% of the people who come have been given asylum. I have a number of questions for the Minister on this. Can he tell me how many extra people have been taken on to interview asylum seekers? Can he tell me what the training is and how long it takes before they are able to start meeting asylum seekers and assessing whether they are genuine? Some members of the public might think this is happening because we want to speed up the process and get the numbers down, but is there some kind of unwritten convention that it is much easier to tick the box and let the person stay? What happens to all the people who are turned down, who have thrown away their documents so we have no idea where to deport them back to? What has happened to the thousands—I am sure it is thousands—who have come in the past few years and literally just disappeared? Where are they all? Have we got figures on them? Those are things we need to know if we are going to get to the bottom of all of this.
Also, we have a very open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Jim Allister, the TUV Member of Parliament for North Antrim, asked a Question for Written Answer at the end of April:
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what procedures are in place to check the movement of people over the Northern Ireland-Republic land border to identify illegal immigrants with no right to access the Common Travel Area”.
The answer was very clear:
“no immigration checks are undertaken on the Northern Ireland-Republic land border”.
Yet at the same time the Republic of Ireland is doing checks the other way at the border, even though it is the country that said that there should be no border there.
We have to be much more realistic, and much more honest. We cannot continue like this. It is unsustainable for any country to have so many people coming in who are not necessarily anti-British—of course they want to come to this country because the pull factor is huge—but we have no idea what their ideologies are. We have no idea whether they are going to get involved and genuinely become British citizens sharing some of our values. It is a drain on our public services, and most of all, it is shattering our cultural community feeling of togetherness. We need to accept that we have to do something. We will not smash the gangs unless we stop the boats. If we stop the boats, we stop the gangs.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I add my compliments to my noble friend Lord Harper on his characteristically deft maiden speech. With his great political experience, he will always command a hearing in this Chamber, although perhaps a few people will hope fervently that, as a former Chief Whip, he does not write his memoirs. However, we shall see about that.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I simply want to confine myself to one particular point, which is that we will not stop illegal immigration across the channel until we have a significant and strong deterrent. That is the fundamental fact of the matter, and that, of course, was the basis of the previous Government’s policy. That policy, which the current Government have now abandoned, was based on the experience of Australia. I remind the House that in 2001, a large number of people began to come across from Indonesia to the Northern Territory of Australia and the then Government, the Liberal-National Party coalition, enacted a series of legislative proposals that built up a system whereby people coming illegally into the north of Australia were detained and flown out to Nauru and the Solomon Islands. As a result of that, when it was finally in place, the boats stopped. Within two months, no more boats came from Indonesia or anywhere else.
In 2008, the Labor Government came in and immediately abolished that system. Immediately the boats came back, and within 18 months, 50,000 people were coming across the Timor Sea to northern Australia. The then Labor Government realised that they had made a mistake and hastily tried to reintroduce the Liberal-National proposals, but unfortunately they were too late and lost the general election. In 2013 the Liberal-National Government brought back the proposals in the form of the sovereign borders arrangements, and then the boats stopped again.
Sensibly, the Australian Labor Party then accepted the proposals and a bipartisan approach emerged. Not only that, but the bipartisan approach that was then adopted throughout Australia led to them dealing with not only illegal immigration but legal immigration, on a very understandable basis: there was a cap for each particular element of the legal elements, whether it was students, skilled workers, family people or asylum seekers, and a total. All that is discussed in parliament in an annual debate and is now bipartisan policy, and the Labor Government who accepted this have been re-elected to continue with this eminently sensible policy, which is, frankly, the sort of policy that we can only dream of in this country, and that was based on a bipartisan approach.
Of course, there are differences between the Australian situation and the UK’s: the Timor Sea is not exactly like the Channel Tunnel, the scrutiny that we get from the media is probably much heavier in this country than they have in Australia and the Australians do not have a European Commission of Human Rights to obey. But the fact is that, although there are differences, there are clear lessons from the Australian experience. First, deterrence is essential, as Martin Hewitt, the new Border Security Commander, recognised. The Times said:
“Martin Hewitt, who was named on Monday as Starmer’s border security commander to lead efforts to tackle the small boats crisis, is understood … to have advised that deterrence also needs to form part of the government’s strategy”.
This echoed an internal National Crime Agency memo that
“concluded that efforts to stop migrants crossing the Channel would fail without a deterrent such as … Rwanda”.
That is the first point: deterrence is essential.
The second point is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just been saying, we need to update human rights law. As even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, has said, events move on; law should not be set in concrete and we need to look at it again. Nine European Union countries have already demanded that exactly that be done. Of course that will take time—there are 46 signatories to the ECHR—but in the meantime we need to separate out and disapply the elements relating to asylum and illegal immigration of this kind, with the hope that the whole thing can be resolved over time. That is the second point.
The third point is that we should also strive for some element of bipartisanship. It has been achieved successfully in Australia. On our own continent, Europe, Denmark has a bipartisan policy. In Australia the bipartisanship has been led by a centre-right party and in Denmark by a centre-left party. Surely the UK can do as well as those two countries. If not, why not?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, immigration is constantly presented as a negative—something to be scared of and to be feared. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill tries to address these fears, dealing primarily with illegal immigration, which we unanimously want to stop.
After all, 150,000 people on small boats came to the UK between 2018 and 2024, and 99% of them claimed asylum. Small boats have been the predominant recorded entry method since 2020. Some 86% of illegal irregular arrivals are from small boats. The most recent arrivals bring the annual total to almost 15,000, which is up 42% on this time last year and up 95% from 2023. Of course, we know of the more than 1,100 who arrived on Saturday.
The channel crossing crisis has placed an enormous burden on our asylum system. The National Audit Office says that it is going to cost over £15 billion over 10 years. I am a trustee of Policy Exchange, which reported that the annual cost of the small boats crisis was in the region of £3.6 billion. This is costing us; there is no question about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, spoke about the people smugglers and the traffickers who cause untold misery. Some 138 people have sadly died attempting to cross the channel. Of course, there are other methods of transport, such as container lorries; let us not forget the sad incident of the 39 Vietnamese nationals who died in a lorry in Essex.
There is the organised immigration crime—OIC—business model. Criminal groups are increasingly using sophisticated methods to smuggle migrants across the border with fraudulent documents. They are using social media. It is appalling. Surely the good news is that resetting our relationship with the European Union, particularly on security, will enable us to work closer and prevent these awful criminals.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out that the net migration figure went from 1 million to 430,000 last year. Let us put this into context: illegal immigration is around 10% of this figure and 90% of the immigration to this country is legal immigration. He then spoke about birth rates. Let us get real; I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about. Our birth rate in this country is 1.44. We need a birth rate of over 2.0 to actually maintain our population at the moment, which is nearly 70 million.
The net migration figure was unusually high in the year ending June 2024, which was driven by two reasons. First, there was the demand for workers in the health and care sector. Secondly, there was the increase in international student numbers. We keep including international students in net migration figures. We should remove them. Would the Minister agree?
As a former president of the CBI and currently as chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK, I know that there are labour shortages in just about every sector of our economy. When it comes to resetting our relationship with the European Union, I am delighted that the Erasmus scheme has come back to give so many opportunities to our young students to be able to travel abroad.
What about the scheme for young people moving for three years between the EU and the UK? Could we have some clarification on that and on the post-graduation work visa, which I worked very hard to institute in this country? It is two years post-graduation for international students and three years for PhD students. There is talk that this will come down to 18 months. This does not make sense. Could the Minister clarify this because the Migration Advisory Committee last year reported that it is working very well as intended?
The international student figure has now reduced from 680,000 to 450,000. The reasons for this are immigration policies, the expense of studying over here and the cost of visas. The value of international students is £42 billion to our economy. Far more important is the soft power that international students bring to this country; 25% of world leaders today have been educated in the United Kingdom.
There are these negative perceptions. I worked very hard on the UK-India free trade agreement, which we have just agreed. It took over three years. Yet there was this whole focus on the national insurance waiver for three years, which goes both ways between the UK and India. This is only fair, and it is to do with workers who come here on the points-based system and mostly the transfer of workers between companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his excellent speech, said that everyone should have an identity card. Why do we not have an identity card system in this country? India has the Aadhaar cards for over 1 billion people, giving financial inclusion, digital inclusion and security. We have only 70 million people. We have a model; India has offered us that model. We have no exit checks at our borders. Every other country in the world has exit checks at the borders. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke about integration. I am all for integration—not assimilation, but integration. He spoke about international students as well.
To conclude, the bad immigration which this Bill is trying to address is bad—full stop. But this country has always had a reputation for fairness and justice, and welcomes genuine refugees and asylum seekers. It is the good immigration that has made Great Britain great. Without the 18% of ethnic minorities in the UK, this country would not still be the sixth largest economy in the world.
I came to this country as a 19 year-old international student from India, as a Tata scholar, a Mahindra scholar and a Sethna scholar. I have had the opportunity to live the British dream. The Indian diaspora in this country is 2 million strong, out of 70 million. It is the largest ethnic-minority community and, I say with pride, the most successful one in this country, reaching the top in every field, from business to academia to politics. So let us not fear immigration; let us celebrate the good immigration that this country has always benefited from and that we should be proud of and grateful for.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on such an accomplished maiden speech. I look forward to future contributions in this debate and other debates in the House.
It seems a lot longer than two years ago that I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the previous Government’s Rwanda Bill. In that contribution, I tried to make a case—perhaps unconvincingly—that in terms of the social contract with the British people on immigration, we, the political establishment, were in the last chance saloon. I tried to make the point that the inflows of illegal migration, and indeed the explosion of legal migration, meant that it was becoming impossible for any UK Government to create, with any significant public support, more routes for the very people who were desperately seeking refuge. I said all this with a heavy heart. I am afraid that the social contract between government and people on immigration has only deteriorated over the past two years.
I am sad to say that it seems difficult to imagine a Government commanding public support for a Syrian, Afghan, Hong Kong or indeed Ukraine resettlement scheme at this point in time. This is not a party-political point; I fully acknowledge that much of the collapse of public confidence in the immigration system came on this side’s watch. I therefore looked forward to a new Government with a fresh mandate carrying on a radical programme to ensure that we as a country could rebuild the trust and confidence required to operate a properly regulated and controlled border—and, importantly for me, to once again give the public confidence to support future resettlement schemes that are currently politically impossible for government to introduce.
There are elements in this Bill that I of course support: the creation of new offences, longer sentences for breaking immigration law and incorporating all sex offenders within Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, on refoulement. I also fully support the international efforts that the Government have made in addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, most especially the small boats. However, I ask the Minister: do the Government really think that the measures contained within the Bill will act as a deterrent for what is a hugely lucrative industry, in the form of people smuggling, when the prospective victims of people smuggling can see waves of new arrivals every week? Do they really think that the measures contained in the Bill help to build public trust in the current state of our border controls?
I was a reluctant supporter of the Rwanda scheme, but I understood that it was bold and radical enough to act as a deterrent and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Horam, similar schemes had had success in Australia and Denmark. The Government have proudly abandoned the scheme in the Bill, but, at the same time, No. 10 Downing Street continues to brief out attempts to find a partner for offshore processing. The writing is on the wall. The Government will get into a situation where a scheme very like the Rwanda scheme will need to be applied. However, we will first go through two years of angst-ridden incremental steps that achieve very little and further build public exasperation. I understand this because that is exactly what the Conservatives did over the last few years. Only in the last years of the previous Government were we able to take the steps that halved legal migration and achieve parliamentary approval for the Rwanda scheme, which would have acted as a deterrent for illegal migration.
Getting control of our borders is not for me, I assure your Lordships, some nativist, nostalgic look to the past. Failure to act and rebuild public confidence by drastically reducing illegal migration only harms one group in the end—the very refugees who would be granted asylum through resettlement schemes that could command public and therefore political support. With every day that passes without real action, the ability of this country to help the most desperate recedes.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Harper on his entertaining and eloquent maiden speech.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that one aim of this Bill was to provide a properly functioning immigration system. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that there is no abuse of the system. One way of making sure there is no abuse is to ensure that the Government do not operate a rigid points-based system but allow discretion to immigration officers. I have raised that point in this Chamber with the Minister before, and he—inadvertently, I am sure—failed to respond to the issue when I raised it. But I would like the Government to consider this as an important aspect of the immigration system.
The main point that I would like to refer to is one that has been raised by a number of other speakers in this debate—namely, the impact of this legislation on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Despite all the protestations from the then Opposition Benches about the impact on the victims of slavery and trafficking of the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act when they were passing through Parliament, the Government have retained aspects of those Acts, which will have an impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Indeed, they have introduced new measures in this Bill which will make it harder for us to identify those victims and harder for us to provide support for them, and therefore less likely that they will come forward.
Modern slavery and human trafficking is the greatest human rights issue of our time. That alone should make the Government reconsider those elements of this legislation. But more than that, if it is harder for us to identify the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking; if it is more difficult for those victims to come forward because of lack of support; if it is easier for the slave drivers and traffickers to use government legislation as a threat to hold people in exploitation, then it will be harder to smash the gangs—and I thought the Minister said, in his opening speech, that smashing the gangs was one of the aims of this Bill. As regards the impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, the Government need to think again.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I would like to say “More, more” to that. I thank the Minister for his straightforward introduction. I think that he would be worried if he had received a unanimous welcome for the Bill today—and we have heard some rather different views. To pick up the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, from his maiden speech, which I really enjoyed, we on these Benches are destined not to agree. I congratulate him on his speech.
At this time of night, I do not want to spend time on matters on which, over quite some years, we have spent a lot of time and emotion opposing. As my noble friends made clear, we welcome what we can—and there is a good deal to welcome. The repeals take up so little space in the Bill that it might be easy to spend too little time on them, but we will not shy away from probing the principled detail and workability of a number of provisions. There are several where we are some way from sharing the Government’s approach.
The Bill includes policies on which, as others have said, many organisations in the sector are providing very useful comments: we thank them. We will seek to persuade the Government of a number of policies and actions for which we have argued over some years—sometimes alongside the Labour Party, though we will try to be tactful about that—including allowing asylum seekers whose claim is not determined to work, retrieve their dignity and pay their way, in jobs which are much less restricted than those in the shortage occupation list. If applications are dealt with within a reasonable time, this should not be too much of an ask.
Where we can within the Bill’s scope, we will try to head off some of the plans trailed in the immigration White Paper, or introduced by recent rule changes, which are causing so much anxiety and distress. The new criteria for the good-character requirement for citizenship and the doubling, retrospectively, of the period of settlement are high on our list, as are the language and financial requirements—these are, to me, a somewhat skewed way of looking at integration. It is clear that a lot of UK citizens’ family members are affected by what the White Paper heralds, and the more the Minister can clarify the details of the residence requirements tonight, the better.
If public trust in the system is to be regained, respecting immigrants and asylum seekers as individuals, not some anonymous other, must be one way to do it, rather than conflating asylum and immigration. As has been said tonight, we must be clear in our language. I welcome the reflective speeches we have heard tonight that have focused on how we debate these issues. We must ensure too that people who have been, and in some cases still are being, exploited and abused are protected and supported, not punished. That is our responsibility.
The Minister will not be surprised that we will argue for practical mechanisms and safe routes to provide refuge for more people who need refuge because they come from conflict-afflicted areas—Sudan has been mentioned several times—or because of who they are. We know that we cannot provide for everyone, but we must do better. I refer any noble Lord who thinks we have been coy about our policy on safe and legal routes to look at our manifesto at the last election.
Nor will the Minister be surprised that we will again be seeking a more humane approach to family reunion, especially where children are involved. We continue to resist the notion that lone refugee children are a “pull factor”; it is push factors that make them lone refugee children. I have no doubt that we will spend time on children’s protection and needs: my noble friend Lady Brinton and others will see to that.
I turn to the Bill with which we are presented. We welcome the repeals of extreme and cruel legislation, but it does not go far enough. My noble friend mentioned detention. It is disconcerting and worrying that the Government are not dealing with clauses that adversely affect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. As I say, we need more repeals. We know that positive action and support are needed to make the UK world-leading again. We did not stay here one night till 4.16 am to vote on age assessment not to address now all the concerns that we still have.
For myself, I am underwhelmed by the clauses relating to the Border Security Commander. As the post was established, I think, the day after the general election, and that must in large part have been presentational—a very useful term—what have we been without for the last 10 months? I have to say that I do not care for the notion that responsibility does not sit squarely with the Home Office.
This is perhaps something and nothing compared to what is under the heading “Other border security provision”. Of course, smugglers are to be condemned and responded to as organised criminals, with money, a lot of it, as their objective, and never mind who is damaged on the way, but some of the offences as drafted will criminalise people who must be recognised as victims forced into certain actions. When smugglers’ victims are, by definition, on hand to be forced to steer boats, for instance, how is this a deterrence to the real criminals or indeed to those who are simply seeking refuge?
TPIMs-type conditions which are lacking in safeguards cast people as criminals, and I accept some who will be affected are, but will these become routine? Will they be used routinely on people who are on immigration bail or who actually have limited leave? What about detention with retrospective powers,
“while the Secretary of State considers whether to make a deportation order”
and “always having had effect”?
I know that the Government do not propose to tag students, though it seems to be possible, but—especially in view of what is happening in the US—let us promote the UK’s universities, not send out a message that they, among others, are viewed with suspicion rather than to be welcomed.
Why is Part 3, “Prevention of serious crime”, in this Bill when we have a Crime and Policing Bill coming along? Mind you, I know it is already very chunky. We certainly resist any suggestion that asylum seekers as a group should be categorised as serious criminals or indeed criminals.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Ludford—like my noble friend Lord Oates, who cannot be here today—is prepared to take on the brain-scrambling Clause 42.
Over the years, we on these Benches have expressed our discomfort—to put it at its lowest—with civil orders which can morph into criminal penalties, and we will want to be very careful with serious crime prevention orders.
I have mentioned Clause 41. Powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations or use discretion are the bread and butter of this House’s work. Before anyone interrupts me, I am aware of the report of the DPRR Committee’s report.
Who could oppose cracking down further on bad immigration advisers? However, what would help more would be more legal aid and not having IAA fees at a level which may have an adverse effect on the numbers of skilled advisers; there is so much unmet need now.
Clauses about data always need our care. I am interested in the point made by one organisation in the sector that the UK should have safeguards to ensure it is not transferring biometric information in such a way that it may place the subject at risk.
It is not a matter for legislation, but on Saturday I received a plea for help with a long-outstanding application for ILR, with the Home Office writing that that there are “technical reasons” for the delay—this is not the case on which I have been in correspondence with the Minister, including this morning. One gets the feeling that there must be piles of too difficult, non-standard applications left on one side; improving efficiency is not only about numbers, but about the tricky cases too.
We look forward to what the JCHR has to say about the Bill, and maybe the Constitution Committee too.
We will strive to turn this Bill into legislation that is focused not on deterrence—which we do not think is likely to be effective—nor on punishment, but a positive response to one of the big issues of our day. By Committee, I might have thought of some music relevant to it.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today, over the course of this evening. The Bill’s focus, as the Minister stated at the outset, is illegal or irregular migration. I am grateful to him for laying out the rationale and context for the Bill, though I depart from him on much of the substance.
I particularly commend the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper. Given his long and distinguished career in the other place, as well as his time in government—as an Immigration Minister at one point—it is perhaps unsurprising that his excellent speech today was both illuminating and incisive. I for one look forward to many more contributions from him in the years ahead.
This debate has made for a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most important areas of responsibility for any Government: the control of our borders. That phrase is an interesting one, because it was only at the weekend that we heard a member of the Government admitting that the UK has lost control of our borders. This was a startling admission from the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, on a weekend that saw the highest daily total of arrivals this year—1,195 people on 19 boats—and the fourth highest figure ever recorded.
However, I admire this frankness—we need to be frank. We need unflinching candour, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough put it so elegantly. Controlling our borders is fundamental to our national security and to our integrity as a sovereign nation. Despite the decades of peace and globalisation we have all experienced over the last 80 years, it remains the first and foremost duty of any Government. We also need to recognise that controlling our borders is a way in which we define, sustain and protect our national identity, not just our national security.
I mentioned the events of the last weekend, because the situation we are seeing now is dire. Small boat crossings are up 30% on last year, and since this Government were elected last July, the numbers have increased. Almost 37,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2024. Of those who arrived that year, more than 23,000 did so after the election.
For all the condemnation we have heard tonight of the Rwanda Act, let us not pretend that the last year under the current Government has been anything other than a resounding failure in terms of illegal crossings. The gangs, self-evidently, have not been smashed.
This situation is untenable, but it is also, tragically, costing lives. The UN estimates that at least 78 migrants died in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record. It says that at least 225 migrants have lost their lives when attempting to cross since 2018. This is an unlawful route of entry into the UK, overseen by gangsters, that is, tragically, taking its toll of human life. That is why, among many other matters, we have to deter people from making this journey. None of this should be controversial.
I am sure that I am joined by noble Lords from across the House when I say that it is incumbent on the Government as a matter of supreme urgency to introduce measures which are courageous, bold and definitive enough to stop this level of illegal migration from happening. With regret, I do not believe the legislative proposals we have before us will achieve this.
Given the scale of the problems we face, I hope the Government will seriously consider the many concerns that have been raised today by those who have called for more stringent measures. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower outlined many of these issues in his opening speech.
In a moment, I will concentrate on some specific points where we believe there are significant problems with the Bill, but before I do so, I would like to address its context; namely, the provisions which are designed largely to undo the work of the last Government in terms of the Illegal Migration and safety of Rwanda Acts.
It is unsurprising that a new Administration will seek to undo some of the policies of their predecessor of a different political hue—that is democratic politics, after all. But let us be clear about the reality of what this will actually mean. It will mean that the Home Secretary is no longer duty-bound to make arrangements to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe country; it will mean that some illegal migrants are allowed to obtain British citizenship; and it will mean that asylum seekers will no longer be treated as over 18 if they refuse to take a scientific age assessment.
Those are just a few of the reasons why we believe the Bill will not succeed. If you were contemplating an illegal crossing into the UK, would a degree of protection from removal, British citizenship, and a bypass of age checks make you more or less likely to attempt the trip as an illegal migrant? More likely, of course.
As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, it is important to ask why people try to come to the UK illegally. The answer to that lies in part in the provisions of the Bill, I contend. In removing these key provisions, the Government propose to replace them with new offences, which are one example, we say, of where technical measures simply will not work in practice. The Bill creates a new offence of selling and handling small boat parts for use in channel crossings. The Bill will also make it illegal to supply life jackets suspected of being for use by people-smuggling gangs and to supply forged ID documents. These are very specific, technical points.
However, simply as a matter of logic, criminalising such activity makes little sense. These supply chains are based in Europe. The boats are coming from France to the UK. The point at which the lifejackets, boats and any forged documents get to the UK is when they appear on the beaches where illegal migrants are landed—at which point, I am afraid, it is far too late. It may be that there is provision in the Bill for such offences to occur outside the UK, but the reality is that, by the time perpetrators are prosecuted, the boats will have arrived. In essence, the Government are proposing to tear up laws that created a direct disincentive to make the journey in the first place and replace them with a list of new offences, which in practice will operate only once migrants are already here.
Other problems with this Bill include the proposal for a new Border Security Commander. Despite the title, if we dig a little below the surface, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we find that what the Government are actually proposing is a civil servant acquiring a redesignated role and, if I may add, a somewhat vague remit—and that is before we get to the potential for duplicating the work of the Small Boats Operational Command. This proposal does not appear to add value at present.
The Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for setting the Government’s strategic priorities for border security. Surely that strategic priority is simple and can be stated in one sentence: stopping illegal migration and protecting our borders. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary do not need a new agency or office to tell them this.
Does the Minister believe that, in addressing this issue, we need to take tougher steps to crack down on organised crime in this area? Would he support amendments that might be tabled in Committee to strengthen the powers of the Border Security Commander so that, when the Bill leaves this place, it proposes a cogent and effective office, able to tackle head on the crisis that we are discussing?
I turn to the importance of a deterrent and its absence from the Bill—a point that many noble Lords have made. We need to prioritise stopping people making the journey in the first place. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said—far more eloquently than I can—the only way we can address this problem is by creating a substantial and meaningful deterrent. If we want illegal migrants to stop coming, we must give them no reason whatever to want to come to the UK; otherwise, they will go to any lengths to circumvent even the strongest legal prohibitions.
The numbers I cited earlier show that people-smuggling gangs are circumventing the law as it stands already—and that is before the Government repeal large swathes of the last Government’s immigration legislation. Surely the Minister cannot be confident that this Bill contains a serious, coherent deterrent to people who are weighing up the decision to cross the channel. The changes proposed to citizenship and staying in the UK simply will not deter people who want to come here illegally. As my noble friend Lord Harper said, the Bill might lead to the removal of the Rwanda Act from the statute book but it contains no deterrent itself. This point was also made by my noble friends Lord Swire, Lord McInnes and Lord Horam, and others.
We have some suggestions for the Minister, which I hope he will consider seriously as we progress to Committee. I have suggested some of these policies already in the Chamber. The first is that we automatically deport anyone who arrives into our country via an illegal, unlawful route. We are a caring and considerate nation. People across this country have opened their homes and their family lives to refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. There are other successful resettlement schemes. We have safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum in our country, so we should not tolerate people skipping the queue by trying to enter illegally. The British people possess a profound compassion, but they also have a deep sense of fair play. When that kindness and fairness are exploited, we should not tolerate it—especially as it comes at the expense of people who do use legal, recognised routes to seek asylum.
Secondly, we propose that the Human Rights Act be disapplied from all immigration matters. This would prevent foreign nationals from exploiting our courts with tenuous human rights arguments designed to avoid deportation or exploit the asylum system. The Human Rights Act is of course designed to protect and uphold fundamental rights, but this is demonstrably not how it is used in matters of immigration. I speak as someone who, in a past life as a lawyer, has acted for asylum seekers. The Human Rights Act has been used to prevent the deportation of convicted foreign criminals. It is tying the hands of government and preventing the deportation of those who cause harm in our communities.
I note with interest what the current Government have said about the interpretation of Article 8 in immigration cases. There is an acceptance by the Home Secretary herself that the application of Article 8 of the convention raises significant concerns. Those who have little respect for fundamental rights should not be able to hide behind such rights when their actions catch up with them. This is a sensible proposal that will ensure that foreign criminals are no longer able to impose themselves on the communities they harm.
Finally, we on these Benches encourage the Government to adopt a legally binding annual cap on migration, voted on by Parliament. A measure that limits levels of migration requires political courage, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, stated. This would ensure that migration levels are determined by the British people through their elected representatives. For decades, the British people have demanded, and politicians have promised, dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments—and, of course, I freely accept that that includes the previous one—have not delivered. It is now time to deliver what the public want. We propose that the Government should be legally tied to a cap—a promise in law to control immigration in line with what communities up and down the country are telling us is their limit. I anticipate that the Minister will welcome a proposal of a cap. If he and the Government are confident that the measures in the Bill will reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally, making themselves accountable to the British people is surely something they will support.
To conclude, the debate has raised many interesting points. I am sure that we all agree that this is a profoundly serious issue and one that is of fundamental importance to people across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that we need to stop people coming here illegally, and I do not believe, with respect to the Minister, that the proposals in the Bill will do that. We need a system closed to criminals and which is intolerant of those trying to exploit its structures and free to take the necessary steps to protect our borders and communities. More than anything, we need a forceful, effective deterrent to stop people coming here illegally in the first place.
We intend to push our proposals in Committee to make this a Bill that does deter illegal migrants. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we progress to the first day in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We commenced at 6.09 pm, and four hours and four minutes later we are coming to a conclusion. I sense, however, that this has been only an hors d’oeuvre for what will come in Committee as we consider this matter further.
We have had a thoughtful debate, and I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady in saying that language and tone are extremely important in how we approach these debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, mentioned, there are forces who will exploit these matters if we—both Houses of Parliament—do not deal with these issues effectively.
Before I turn to the Bill, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his maiden speech. He was right that I shadowed him for a while in the House of Commons when he was the Minister. I did indeed go to Calais in 2014 and tried to put some points to both him and the then Home Secretary. While we had our disagreements, I do not think that we fell out over those issues. We had a civilised relationship, which I hope will continue. He gave a confident maiden speech today, and I particularly welcome his comments about the late Sir Roy Stone, who served in the Whips’ Office for all parties for many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about an orchestra. We have had some cohesion in the sense that there are some areas of agreement today: we have agreement that we need to look at the issues of prevention and that we need a deterrent, although we disagreed about what that deterrent should be. We have had some discussion about safe routes, and I will come to that in a moment. We have had agreement on the security command and the need for that co-ordination, and we have had agreement on international obligations being met. I want to assure my noble friend Lord Sahota and other noble Lords who raised this that we will maintain our international agreements and co-operation as currently set out in law. I will talk to each of those points in a moment.
The debate also covered a range of issues to do with the role of students, employment, family reunion, net migration, exit and entry, regulation, integration, pressure on homes, the value of migration and statistics, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned and are important. I say to noble Lords—and that includes the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Jackson, Lord Green, Lord Blunkett, Lord Goodman, Lord Macdonald, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord McInnes, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor, Lady Brinton and Lady May—that those issues are at the heart of the immigration White Paper, which does not form part of the Bill but is a good background to the issues that have been raised and will form part of the Government’s ongoing strategy to develop an approach to migration issues. While they are important, I do not want to ignore them, but I do not want to focus on them today because today’s focus is about the question of this legislation and what we do about the predominantly illegal migration—irregular migration—that is taking place.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who kicked off this debate, how we have got to where we are today. The issues with hotel accommodation, asylum use and levels of small boat incursion did not happen since 4 July last year; they are long-term systemic issues over which his Government presided. Collectively, we have to look at solutions.
There have been many views on the Bill and its provisions put forward today by Members of this House. The Government are trying to put some measures in place to deal with those key issues. The first of those—and this goes to the heart of a number of points that were made, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—is on the question of deterrence.
We have taken a decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. That was welcomed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick, Lady Brinton, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. But there is a clear difference of opinions on the Rwanda Act between the noble Lords and the current Government, and that is that we need a deterrent. The deterrent is about capturing boats, looking at assets and putting measures in place to disrupt those gangs, but it is not the Rwanda scheme as determined by the previous Government. That already spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to send back only four people who went voluntarily.
During the period after that Bill became law to when this Government determined that it would be repealed, 84,000 people still crossed the channel. That was not a deterrent for those individuals at that stage. So we need a deterrent, and the deterrent we need is the type of arrests that the noble Lord asked me to look at and which we have made already: arrests among a Syrian organised crime group linked to 750 migrants from the UK and Europe since 4 July; the arrest of a Turkish national suspected of being a supplier of small boats; the conviction of two men from Wales who ran a smuggling gang; the arrest of six men in Belgium; NCA support for German law enforcement operations with 13 arrests across Germany and France; and the NCA establishing, with authorities in Libya and Kurdistan—a region of Iraq—how we actually tackle smuggling at that upstream level. Those are deterrents, and we need a deterrent. I and the Government do not believe that the Rwanda scheme was effective.
The question of what we do in place of that is very important. The Bill establishes Border Security Command. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, rightly asked, “What are the key performance indicators on that?” For us, they are a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs, and we will discuss that as the Bill goes forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friend Lord McInnes and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, raised that issue. The commander in place will provide strategic cross-system leadership, is already engaging with nations in the European Union about what we need to do together, and has already worked with the NCA, the Home Secretary and others to establish both the Iraq scheme that we put in place and new co-operations with the imaginatively named Calais group to look at how we can reduce the number of crossings at that level.
There are indicators that need to be put in place, and we will be judged on those indicators and on those manifesto commitments. But our work with the French already has prevented 9,000 crossings this year. Germany, through the work of the Border Security Commander, is looking to change its laws so that it can prosecute people upstream on supply. We have secured the landmark agreement with Iraq and have set up the new border command with £150 million-worth of support. Yes, there need to be indicators, as the noble Viscount mentioned, but I believe that is an important issue that we have undertaken.
Just to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the actions that we have taken to date, we scrapped the “Bibby Stockholm”, which she mentioned; we have taken a range of actions to do with current accommodation; we are committed to reduce the level of asylum hotels; and we are committed to use the resource from the scheme that we have scrapped in Rwanda to speed up the processing of asylum claims in order to determine who has a genuine asylum claim according to our international obligations, who does not, and then to remove them. Part of the importance of the Bill is to put that framework in place.
A number of noble Members raised the question of safe and legal routes, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. The UK has a strong history of providing protection through our safe and legal routes, and we want to continue to welcome refugees and people in need. As Members will know, we already have bespoke routes to sanctuary, such as the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong schemes, and in relation to Sudan we have already accepted 300 nationals to be resettled through our schemes as of September 2024.
The safe and legal routes are there. Do we need to review them and look at how we meet our international obligations? Yes, we do. Again, I refer to the immigration White Paper before us. On the safe and legal route option—my noble friend Lord Dubs discussed his family reunion option—there are safe and legal routes that we can look at, but I am sure I will discuss with my noble friend, as I have done already, his concerns during upcoming stages, and I will give consideration as to how we can improve understanding, knowledge and action in those areas.
Noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the wider work with the EU: my noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned that particularly, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Bilimoria. It is extremely important, and one of the things that the Government will not do is stand back from Europe. We will not revisit the Brexit debate—we cannot do that—but we can look at how we can improve co-operation on key issues. That means law enforcement but also a whole range of things. We have extra support with Europol, and we had the EU-UK summit on 19 May, where a new wide-ranging package of measures that address all elements of the global challenge was discussed.
Again, deterrence is also about understanding the problem; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned very clearly how we understand that problem. One of the things we need to do is to work with our European partners—not our European Union partners any more but still our European partners—to assess and examine the challenge of irregular migration upstream. That is one thing that we are trying to do collectively to improve that European work.
Turning to the question from my noble friend Lord Dubs, we have done a lot of work with France on organised international crime, because it is a shared problem in which all nations have a role to play. It is really important that we have, through Border Security Command, operational activity at a local level with the nations that border us. The results of that have seen 600 boats and engines already taken down, 30,000 returns since the election—a 12% increase over the previous period—a 23% increase in enforced returns and an increase in foreign national offender removals. Those are important issues. They are in the Bill, but they are also areas that we need to look at as part of the immigration White Paper as a whole.
Let me turn to modern slavery, because I understand and note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and others. The sole modern slavery provision in the Bill would allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public grounds. The Home Office has committed to working with partners to agree priorities on long-term reform as part of the national referral mechanism. I understand what the noble Baroness said, but I will look at that issue, because I do not want to see watering down of modern slavery provisions. I supported the Bill, now an Act, that she took through as Home Secretary some 10 years ago, and I want to make sure that we deal with that. But the purpose of the modern slavery provision that we are looking at is dealing with foreign national offenders who are involved in modern slavery. I heard what she said today. We will look at that, and there is an opportunity to examine those issues as we progress the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord McInnes and Lord Swire, mentioned third-country processing. That is not the Rwanda scheme. Examinations are ongoing with partners across Europe. Scoping work has shown that it is a model that could meet our international obligations and reduce the burden of illegal migration on UK shores. We will work closely with international partners to look at the global migration crisis as a whole.
I will end with a couple of other issues that have been mentioned. The EU settlement scheme was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The clause on EU citizens’ rights is designed to confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the UK settlement scheme was established. Again, I have heard what she said. I hope that when we look at that in detail, we can take on board those issues and debate them in full, but I hope we can give her some satisfaction on those issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised a number of key points. Again, I will reflect on those, as I hope she knows I will.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark mentioned the detention pilot. I give him an assurance that the department is going to keep under review the feasibility of the alternatives to the detention pilot, taking into account effectiveness and cost-efficiency, as part of our plans to transform the asylum and return system. Again, I will refer to him in due course on those issues. Our international obligations are extremely important. The Bill does not include them, but there is an opportunity within the discussion on the Bill to outline still further what we are doing on those issues.
We have had a wide-ranging debate on migration and immigration issues today. Much of that is outside the scope of this Bill. I understand why it been linked to the Bill, but it is outside its scope. The Bill is designed to focus predominantly on illegal migration. In doing so, we have established Border Security Command, which we are giving the power to track and confiscate mobile phones. We are looking at how to deal with downstream suppliers and doing what we said we would do in our manifesto, which is to disrupt and spoil the gangs that are operating this evil cross-channel trade. That is what the Bill will do, and I defy anyone in this House to say any that of the measures in the Bill to take action against those criminal gangs should not be undertaken.
We will have an honest debate about the deterrence issue and about the repeal of the Rwanda Bill. We believe that we have alternatives to that, but the measures in this Bill are worthy of support. How we look at integration, employment and students, how we encourage family reunion, how we build a society in which people are respected but also integrated and how we value the people who have come to this country over many years and through many generations are issues in the White Paper, which will be debated.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful summing-up of the debate. He will understand that the current discussions around reforming the ECHR are germane to this Bill and wider immigration issues. There are nine countries doing that. This Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity to take part. If he cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining why that is the case?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are aware that a letter has been circulated by countries, which is perfectly legitimate. They are countries within the European Union; we are outside the European Union now. We will look at the provisions of Article 8 and how we can interpret them but maintaining—very importantly for those Members who have raised these issues—our integral role as a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations, but it does not mean that we cannot look at interpretations and examine how we implement those regulations in a UK context. We will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter, but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues.
I will look at Hansard in detail. I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full. I look forward to the debates we will have on specific amendments and specific clauses. However, I look to this House to give support to the Government’s proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if those people have legitimate asylum claims. This is being done by criminal gangs for illegal profit. We need international co-operation to tackle the downstream issues and to tackle the gangs at source.
I commend this Bill to the House today in order to continue that progress and to ensure that we have a full debate in Committee on its contents and the suggestions that will undoubtedly come forward from all sides of the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 40, Schedule 1, Clauses 41 to 53, Schedule 2, Clauses 54 to 63 Title.