Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 10th Report from the Constitution Committee.

15:30

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

27: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Mandatory referral for age assessment in criminal proceedingsWhere an individual who claims to be under 18 is charged with an offence of illegal entry or facilitating illegal entry under immigration law, the Home Office must—(a) make an immediate mandatory referral to the relevant local authority for a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, and(b) ensure that no prosecution proceeds until an assessment has been completed and the individual’s age is confirmed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that individuals who may be children are required to have a comprehensive age assessment before any criminal proceedings for immigration offences can proceed, ensuring they are properly assessed and safeguarded in line with child protection principles.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to take part on this Bill at an earlier stage. The second amendment in this group, Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, addresses the issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers who may or may not be under 18, and we continue to support these amendments. My Amendment 27 deals with a more specific part of the age-assessment process. It seeks to introduce an immediate mandatory referral for a Merton-compliant, social work-led age assessment before any criminal proceedings can be taken against the individual. I thank the Home Office for issuing its paper on abbreviated age assessments earlier in the year, which clarifies its position on this sensitive issue of issuing criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker who says they are under 18, but who officials believe to be over 18. From these Benches, while it is a helpful clarification, it does not change the core position that this amendment wishes to remedy.

At the heart of the government note is an abbreviated and expedited process now led by National Age Assessment Board—NAAB—social workers. We still argue that this process needs to be carried out by local authorities and not by NAAB, because NAAB is answerable to the Home Office and, of course, to its Ministers. Any age-assessment process must be independent of the Government and their staff, who have often already decided that the individual is probably over 18. I therefore have some questions for the Minister.

The considerably shorter abbreviated age-assessment process has turned the premise of how old an individual is into trying to determine that somebody could be under 18, as opposed to establishing their actual age under the Merton-compliant system; whereas the full assessment uses age ranges in much more depth. In January 2022, the Kent intake unit tried an abbreviated process with an investigation half way between a full age assessment and a brief inquiry, which was found to be unlawful in the courts. Can the Minister say how the abbreviated system will be different from the previous Kent intake unit case? Can the Minister also confirm that, if someone is in a hotel saying that they are a child, then they are potentially a child in need in that area, and therefore the local authority needs to respond, given that the case law makes it abundantly clear that it has to take a view that is independent from the Home Office? It would be a miscarriage of justice if the Home Office tells local authorities, who think they are children, that they are not children. That must remain the role of local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will still play this key independent role?

This amendment is laid because concerns continue that the National Age Assessment Board uses a hostile approach to the age-assessment process. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has investigated the experiences of children who have been assessed by the NAAB and found that it:

“Operates according to the Home Office’s political agenda, which is felt by the children being assessed … Carries out assessments that do not follow established age assessment guidance, and therefore make it difficult for children to engage meaningfully in the process … Causes distress, retraumatisation, mental health crisis, and ongoing trust issues for children”.


One young person said to the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit:

“From the first time, you feel that they are against you. This is their intention, to end with the report that you are an adult”.


This is not a safe human rights approach to making a decision about whether a young person and child could be deemed to be over 18, then treating them as such, without the safeguarding protections afforded to under-18s in our court system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 57, in my name and those of other noble Lords, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium for all its help and to my noble friend Lady Longfield, who cannot be in her place but who has written to my noble friend the Minister in support of the amendment, drawing on her experience as a former Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for finding the time the other week to discuss some of this with some of us. I should make clear my support for Amendment 27 and everything that has been said so far.

This amendment is focused on the age of assessment of children at the border. It would create safeguards for asylum-seeking children whose age is in dispute and would set limits on the use of scientific or technological age-estimation methods, which I believe the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, will cover. It would also provide for an annual report to Parliament.

To recap the case very briefly, as we have heard, the Home Office continues to assess incorrectly as adults a significant number of asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK based on a quick visual assessment of their appearance and demeanour. This has serious consequences—some have already been outlined—which include significant safeguarding risks when children are placed in accommodation with adults without appropriate safeguards, including the oversight of child protection professionals.

Concern has been expressed about this by the Children’s Commissioner, Ofsted, the British Association of Social Workers and, just last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which called it a “serious safeguarding issue”. Yet the Home Office appears to be more concerned about the potential risk of an adult masquerading as a child being housed with children even though child protection professionals will be present in those circumstances.

The Select Committee made it clear that it did not share the Home Office director-general of customer services’ confidence in the current system. In his recent inspection report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration highlighted that over a decade of concerns around the Home Office’s “perfunctory” visual age assessments remain unaddressed, and that questions about policy and practice “remain unanswered”. He noted that

“inspectors were surprised at the lack of curiosity from individual officers and corporately about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and at the view that there was no learning to take from the later assessments”

made by local authority social workers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations and that they are working to improve the data, which have been woefully poor hitherto.

I simply draw attention now to what the chief inspector described as his “overall message”, namely that the Home Office

“should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders”,

among which he included NGOs,

“as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes”.

Thus, his first recommendation was that the Home Office should:

“Produce a stakeholder map and engagement plan that takes full account of the practical and presentational value of involving external stakeholders”,


including non-governmental organisations,

“in the development and delivery of relevant policies and best practice, including but not limited to input into and implementation of each of”

each of his other recommendations.

How does my noble friend plan to respond in practice to this recommendation? Will he agree to the establishment of a task and finish group that includes NGOs, notably members of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, to work with officials on taking forward the chief inspector’s recommendations? I understand that such collaboration has existed in the past but was ended about 10 years ago, so it would not be setting a precedent. I know it would be warmly welcomed by stakeholders, especially if provision were made to hear from those with direct experience of age disputes. The proposal was also supported by my noble friend Lady Longfield in her letter to the Minister.

I have made it clear to my noble friend the Minister that I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote. However, I will be very disappointed if he is not able to agree to this very modest proposal, which does no more than embody the spirit of what the chief inspector has recommended.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for very long on this, I hope. I also hope that the Minister does not feel that this is becoming a pattern—I am largely on the same side as him on this issue—and that I can bring a little bit of balance to the debate. Both noble Baronesses have mentioned the chief inspector. I looked carefully at his very balanced report. There are points on both sides. It is worth putting some of them on the record that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not.

The chief inspector made the point that accurately assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult. It has always been very difficult. It was difficult when I was the Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014. The same debates that take place now took place then. It remains difficult. One of the reasons it is difficult is because there is an incentive in the system because, rightly, we treat children differently from and more generously than we treat adults. If you are not careful, adults game the system and say that they are children when they are not. That is a problem: first, because you are putting adults in an environment with children, which does present a child protection risk; and, secondly, it enables adults who have entered the country illegally and inappropriately to try to avoid the consequences of their actions. That brings the system into disrepute, which is not good for anyone.

The inspector makes the point that the Home Office gets some of its initial age decisions wrong and that it would be helpful if both sides accepted that. That is a point for the Minister to recognise: it is difficult and the Home Office does not always get it right. Importantly, he also said that the debate would be better if the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age and that not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment—which both noble Baronesses have criticised—risks incentivising more to do so. There is a balance to strike here.

I am pleased that these two amendments will not be pressed to a vote because I would not be able to support them. Amendment 27 seeks to put a bright-line rule in place which will strengthen the incentive for anybody to claim that they are a child because it would mean that they went automatically into the process and were treated as a child until it had been shown that they were not a child. That would make the Home Office’s job, on behalf of us all, to have a functioning immigration system even more difficult.

My concern about Amendment 57, given today’s fourth Oral Question and the pace of technology, is that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause does not specify how we should use technological methods of age estimation, including facial age estimation, saying that they must not

“be used as the sole or primary basis for determining age, or … override the presumption”

that someone is a child.

My problem is that the pace of that technology is such that I do not think we should be ruling out its use as the determining fact in statute. My understanding—I am sure there are AI experts in the House who can correct me if I am wrong—is that this technology can get somebody’s age within a few years of the true age. I accept that that is quite important when a person is on the boundary between being a child or an adult, but the point is that that is pretty accurate and who knows where that technology will have gone in a few years? If we had a very accurate method, perhaps with other things, of determining somebody’s age, I would not want there to be something in primary legislation which ruled that out, given all the complexities around that.

15:45

Caution should be adopted when using technology—that is absolutely right. It is perfectly sensible if that is the spirit of the amendment, but having a bright-line rule in there that prevents technology becoming more important than it will be today, if it is proved to be very accurate, would be unwise. I know that the Minister and his colleagues are trialling this technology, and I look forward to seeing the results of that pilot they are running, with the cohort of children and adults that will be put through the system, to see how accurate that technology is in practice.

In conclusion, this is a difficult area. It is wise for the Home Office to accept that it sometimes makes mistakes, as the chief inspector has recommended, but critics of the Home Office ought to accept that this is a difficult area; even if the Home Office is doing everything it possibly can, mistakes will be made. But we must not design a system that sets up incentives for adults to wrongly claim that they are children in order to game and evade the system. If you do that, you will test the patience of the British people. The current position, as we have heard before in debates in the House, is that for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the British public have a lot of generosity; but if they feel that adults are using that generosity to game the system, that generosity will disappear, and everyone will rue the day if that is the case.

We should all listen to what the chief inspector said in his balanced conclusions and recognise the difficulties and that the Home Office makes mistakes, but also there are migrants who lie about their age to game the system. If everybody accepts both those points, I think, as the chief inspector says, we will have a better and more balanced debate to get to a strengthened asylum system that is fair not just to those claiming asylum but to the British people and their generosity.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I understand very well what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is saying, but one of the problems, it seems to me, is the differing maturity of children in different parts of the world.

Several years ago, I went to the charity Safe Passage, which has a drop-in centre in north London. I met two Afghan boys who were both truly identified as 16; Safe Passage was absolutely satisfied they were 16, and they actually had some papers to prove it. One of them had a beard and the other had a moustache. Anybody who did not know about different maturity in different parts of the world would take it for granted that they were over 18. There is an added problem here: we need to recognise the differing maturity of children from different parts of the world.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 57, to which I have added my name. I too thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for all the help that it has given us. I also support Amendment 27.

For very good reason, and not for the first time, Amendment 57 would introduce statutory safeguards for individuals whose age is disputed. To the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I say: we do not suggest that we should prohibit visual assessments at the border. What Amendment 57 would ensure is that those assessments comply with child protection principles, especially the benefit of the doubt standard established in case law and international guidance. This principle requires that where age is uncertain, the individual should be treated as a child unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. That is the principle which I believe we should stick to.

The amendments align with recommendations by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already said. Crucially, the amendment also addresses the Government’s proposal to use AI-based facial age estimation. I feel that I am a broken record on the subject of facial age estimation, and indeed on age estimation in general. We have had to contend with the proposal to use X-ray systems to determine age, and time after time we have argued that not only is it inaccurate—a point made clearly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—to use teeth or wrists for X-rays but it is unethical to expose people to unnecessary radiation and that X-rays should be used only for the benefit of the people concerned. We are delighted that the present Government are not proposing X-rays among their scientific methods, and we are also immensely grateful to the Minister for having conversations with us on this subject.

However, the AI systems suggested are not foolproof either. Indeed, independent evaluations show that these systems have error margins of between two and four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, and they exhibit demographic bias, which is exactly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said—particularly, it turns out, for younger ages and minority ethnic groups. Academic research confirms that children’s faces are harder to assess accurately and that claims of near-perfect accuracy remain unverified. Overreliance on such technology risks replicating systematic errors rather than fixing them, so we will be replacing human error with machine error.

We all recognise that age assessment is complex and cannot be solved by one measure, but we believe that the Government need to listen to experts and adopt safeguards that make the system safer for children. Amendment 57 offers a practical, rights-based solution. It would preserve operational flexibility at the border, reinforce compliance with children’s legislation, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of technology. I hope the Minister can give us some more details about how the trial of this AI technology will work, and indeed that he can reassure us that it will not be relied on unless it is truly accurate—but it looks as if we are a long way from that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was too late to put my name down to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am sure she will understand that the points that have been made on the second amendment in this group largely apply to hers as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, tells us that adults game the system. I agree, but safeguarding applies both ways, both if someone is assessed as a child when he is an adult—it is usually a he—and if he is assessed as an adult when in fact he is a child. The question that we have is: where do you start from? How do you approach this: that claimants are fraudulent, or that claimants should be believed until the contrary is shown—the benefit of the doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said? Where is the greatest danger? It will be obvious from my signature to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, where I believe it is.

I think, too—I will accuse myself of this; I do not want to accuse others of it—that there is a cultural bias. I say that even though I have a lot of Middle Eastern blood in me, so I should not be as biased as someone who is an ancient Briton, but I have detected it in myself.

I accept that this is a hugely difficult area and that technology is advancing almost as fast as we can draft amendments, which makes it all the more difficult. I am sure it has advanced a long way since the time I was stopped at the Gare du Nord because I seemed not to be the same as the person shown in the photograph in my passport because I was wearing earrings, which meant that the distance between my ears was not the real one.

I asked a couple of Questions for Written Answer recently. On the first one I got generalised assurance, so I asked some very specific questions, which inevitably got an Answer about the Home Office providing further updates regarding testing “in due course”. In a way, the thrust of my question today is to ask the Minister how and when Parliament is to be updated on what is going on—not just Parliament but all the stakeholders. It is not word I particularly like but it describes the variety of people concerned with this.

The Answer to my Question of 6 October included:

“If and when this technology is used in live cases, full information and guidance will be available to those undergoing”


facial age estimation

“as well as to staff involved in the process”.


That suggests that the Home Office will stay in its silo looking at the issues and at the process, without involving all those stakeholders who need to be included—social workers, for instance. In the case of the second amendment it is social workers in local authorities, because it the local authorities that have to carry the can and look after children under 18.

I accept that the figures reported on GOV.UK are only up to quarter 2 of 2024, so I am making the point as a general one for all of us and not accusing the Government of anything, but they show that in three of the quarters the issue was resolved with the claimant being over 18. In fact, the numbers show that there was very little difference between those under and those over 18 in the particular quarters, but in the other five quarters considerably more were found to be less than 18, including 240 at less than 18 compared to 18 plus, 744 at less than 18—I am fudging my figures. I do not mean to fudge them; I am just making a mess off them because I have not written them out properly. But the differences in the numbers at less than 18 were considerably more than those found to be over 18.

The inspector made a number of recommendations. The formal response is that the Government have accepted them all. That is then followed by an explanation which, again, does not seem to be as precise as I, for one, would like it to be. I hope, in particular, where the Home Office has said in response to the inspector that the date of implementation will be December 2025—next month—that the Minister will agree to report on those various points very soon, perhaps in February, because December is not very far away. If things are going to happen in December, and I can see he is checking this, it would be very helpful for the House to know that a system is in place for reporting on what is going on.

16:00

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the evidence coming out in our debate today is that there are a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. Last weekend, I met a group of local authority leaders who told me about a situation last November, regarding unaccompanied children who had been kept in hotels and were coming out into their care. I asked whether it had improved, and they said that the numbers may have changed but there were still examples of young people who had been taken out of the system because they had been wrongly assessed. The current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum remains deeply flawed. I think there are not many who would accept that it is all working really well.

We already have some indication that the cohort of people being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected rapidly upon entry by Border Force officials. As we know from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, appearance, demeanour and physical development are all affected by environment, life experiences and ethnicity, and making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.

In answer to the point that there will be some people who will play the system, we need to understand that, when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children. That risks them being placed in adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. That is a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children. We have already seen cases where individuals who raised that their age was under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand, or a conviction on immigration offences.

The stakes in this Bill are extremely high, with the new offences related to immigration crime contained within it carrying substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years. It is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.

I know that the Government have started to look carefully at these issues, as we had this discussion during Committee. The Government said that there were concerns about how such an amendment would operate in practice, mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, and that it would potentially frustrate the removals process and add to asylum backlogs. But at that time the Minister gave assurances, as he will know, that existing safeguards are in place. He named three: that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts; that the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age-dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest; and that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard, whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as “significantly over 18” who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges. However, these assurances do not go far enough when a child’s liberty and future are at stake.

First, relying on the CPS’s prosecutorial discretion and the court’s ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient, when we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings. The risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point—before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law. This amendment would require a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically.

On Amendment 57, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, we need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and the key people within them but those who have expertise in this area. It is a difficult area, and we therefore need to bring together all that expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention.

The Government are right to focus on improving the robustness of the process. That includes looking at what the NAAB does, how it operates and whether it is up to the job of doing the things that we have been talking about in this debate. Facial age estimation technology is almost a case of saying, “We may have that possibility in the future”, but, as with anything—such as if we were trying to tackle new drugs or give new treatments to people—we should not do it without sound advice that it is in order and would produce the right results. The question must remain open on that matter, and I am sure the Minister will know that the exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard. It would ensure that expert, child-focused social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system as an adult. We know that this amendment has been supported by organisations across the children’s sector. It would ensure that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts before any prosecution can proceed. We support the intention of Amendment 57, also in this group. There are very serious matters here that I hope the Minister will address.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.

The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.

It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her Amendment 57, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 27, which has stimulated a discussion. I am grateful for the letter that I received today from my noble friend Lady Longfield, in which she asked me to support my noble friend Lady Lister’s Amendment 57. We have had a number of contributions, and I will try to refer to the issues that have been raised. I was grateful for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to discuss these amendments. I do not think my noble friend Lady Lister was present—I have had so many meetings that I lose track.

There is general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work and that no single combination of assessment techniques is able to determine chronological age with precision: Members from all sides of the House have raised that issue. The Government take it extremely seriously and the amendments are right to press the Government on the issues we have raised. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on the difficulty, sometimes, of age assessments, and this is self-evidently a difficult area for us to examine in detail.

I will mention the report from the independent borders inspectorate. It is important to say at the start of this discussion that the Government accepted all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Lady Lister, among others, referred to that. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I hope that, throughout this, Members of the House will recognise that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.

Amendment 57 seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the Bill. The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a “significantly over 18” policy from 18 to 21, with written reasons, and would put this on to a statutory footing. Initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age and two Home Office staff members independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over the age of 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court and held to be lawful.

The Government believe that “significantly over 18” is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks by putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised this. This is extremely important because, obviously, if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and is not, that presents safeguarding risks—and vice versa: if an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it is extremely important that we examine this individual point in some detail.

The important question of data has been raised, and I gave assurances in our meeting with the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that we are collecting data and that the Government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026. We have developments now representing a significant advancement in technical infrastructure, enabling the more accurate and consistent recording of key activities. Therefore, the up-to-date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is under way to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. I hope that addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have that data very shortly and I hope we can publish it.

There has been significant discussion—the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made reference to this—of the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on this subject issued by my colleague the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed currently being explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process.

To go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned, with the intention of developing this technology further in late 2026. The results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we have undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving, as evidenced in the emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which shows that the potential is there for this to be of assistance.

16:15

This amendment would potentially ensure that the work did not progress to the extent that it could, and it is a bit too early to rule that out—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has made. I am grateful to have him on my side yet again; it is a novel experience for me. But there we go: I am grateful to have that support. It would be premature to restrict the potential use of this technology while work is ongoing. We are going to examine this in detail and look at the safeguards in detail, but I hope that my comments reassure noble Lords that the relevant substantial work is in train and therefore that Amendment 57 is unnecessary. The Government are committed to continuous and constructive engagement on age assessment.

On Amendment 27, the noble Baroness’s lead amendment, I agree with her on the importance of safeguarding children. On 30 June this year, the Government introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in an adult prison for immigration offences. When an individual who has been assessed to be significantly over 18 maintains their claim to be a child and is identified for potential criminal charges, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers. Anyone determined to be a child or needing more in-depth assessment will be referred to a local authority for an assessment.

The noble Baroness raised a number of key points on that issue. The National Age Assessment Board, which launched on 31 March 2023, has now rolled out nationally and continues to offer significant improvements to our process for age assessing and continues to have expert social workers whose task is to support local councils in collecting comprehensive age assessments. The borders inspectorate recognised in its report recently that the National Age Assessment Board is a good example of partnership working and has undoubtedly made a positive contribute for the future. The noble Baroness mentioned that it is located in the Home Office, and that is true, but its assessment and members of staff are distinct from Home Office immigration decision-making functions, and the aim of achieving accurate age assessments will remain its primary consideration. So, even where local authorities refer to the National Age Assessment Board, they will continue to have a very important role in age assessment decisions taken in respect of children in their care.

In summary, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to the debate, who have all made extremely valid points probing the Government’s position. But, ultimately, age assessment is a difficult issue. We have safeguarding challenges in getting that wrong and, therefore, we think that the proposals as currently outlined are satisfactory and that both Amendments 57 and 27 would water down the legislation and create certain further difficulties on these issues. But I say to all Members who have spoken in the debate that the Government keep this matter under review; we will look at facial recognition and will report back, and we will have further statistics on these issues in due course—and the Government’s intention is to try to ensure that the information we get is as accurate as possible to ensure that we place individuals in the appropriate category for safeguarding and other issues.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked a specific question about how the Government propose to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendation about involving stakeholders. At the meeting that the Minister has forgotten I was at, I asked about a task and finish group that would involve particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the issues. I said I would be very disappointed if my noble friend refused that, but I am even more disappointed that he has not even addressed it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I did address that. I said at the very beginning of my statement that the Government have accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I have met my noble friend, I think, three times in various meetings in the last couple of weeks; in that meeting I gave her an assurance, and I give her that assurance again, which I hope will satisfy her.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am really sorry to push this, but I was asking how that recommendation is going to be implemented. If the Minister is giving me an assurance that NGOs will be included in the discussions as to how all the recommendations of the chief inspectors should be implemented, I am very happy—but I am not sure that is exactly what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me say it again and see whether I can help my noble friend: the Government have accepted all eight recommendations. That is clear. We have accepted all the recommendations from the borders inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders—voluntary agencies are key stakeholders, and I met them again last week to discuss this very matter—to progress the recommendations. How that pans out will be for my honourable friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, to take forward, but I give this House the assurance that that is the level of engagement that we are trying to have. On that basis, I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend and that she will not press her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw hers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate on age assessment, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her amendment, which, as the Minister recognised, sets a wider framework for concerns about age assessment, whereas my amendment was highly specific about one area of concern. I say to the Minister and to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, that nobody is saying in either of these amendments that there should not be any age assessments. We are arguing for age assessments that are appropriate and safe for the particular circumstances that the two amendments address.

I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that this is not an exact science. We understand that, and it is exactly where part of our concerns come from. I think that full assessment is the only way, particularly when young people who say they are children might end up being treated as adults in a criminal case. That is a very particular concern, which is why I tabled the amendment, because during cases those under 18 are afforded particular support that is not available if they are over 18. Therefore, age assessment is extremely important, which is why my amendment asks for a full age assessment, not the abbreviated age assessment that the Minister says is now taking place.

To summarise as best I can, without taking anything away from the intervention just now from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we hear the Minister saying that there have been changes and that he is watching development as time progresses. From this side of the argument, we say that we do not see enough evidence that these systems are safe. I hope that the Minister will continue to discuss this with us outside the passage of the Bill, because some of us have been arguing for this for three years or more. We still have concerns, which we are seeing in the current system right now, when a child has been treated as an adult and then found to be a child. That should not be happening. But on the basis that this is a progression and that I hope the Minister will meet us in the future, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Clause 38: Repeal of certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

28: Clause 38, page 32, line 20, leave out “11” and insert “12”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add section 12 (period for which persons may be detained) to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these are meant to be helpful amendments and, if they are read with a favourable eye, they might be seen as such. To start, I remind your Lordships that freedom from executive detention is the most fundamental right of all. It is not only an international human right but a national one, reaching back 800 years to the Magna Carta. In the absence of any statutory time limit on the length of detention, other than for children and pregnant women, the right to liberty has been safeguarded in our common law.

Amendments to strip back Section 12 and uphold the common law during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill in July 2023 were supported from all corners of this House by a quite motley crew of very noble Lords. Amendment 28 and the consequential changes made by Amendment 30 seek to simply restore the common law to the position it was in before Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was brought into force and sought to chip away at it. With so many other provisions of the Illegal Migration Act to be repealed by Clauses 38 and 39, Section 12 should be added to their number.

There are two reasons. First, the reasonableness of a period of immigration detention should not simply be in the hands of the Minister and down to her opinion; it should be entrusted to the responsibility of our courts in our world-renowned common-law system. This is not to say that courts will ignore the Home Secretary’s views. On the contrary, in 2007 our Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged that it will no doubt take account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper.

Secondly, by returning to the common-law position, we would also uphold the right to liberty under international human rights law. In 2016 the European Court of Human Rights agreed that it is this consideration by domestic courts of the reasonableness of each individual period of detention that ensures the absence of a general fixed time limit in the UK system, because it does not, in principle, give rise to increased risk of arbitrariness.

Repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At paragraph 103 of its report on this Bill, it clearly stated:

“We agree with our predecessor Committee and recommend the repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with Article 5”.


Turning to Amendment 32 in my name, I take forward the task of continuing to recommend that the Government leave out the retrospective element of the detention power in Clause 41—that is, the power to detain people when considering whether to make a deportation order on the basis of their presence. This amendment is modest when compared with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was to leave Clause 41 out of the Bill altogether. This amendment is simply about removing retrospectivity in subsection 17, which treats the new detention power as always having had effect.

The Government’s position appears to be that Clause 41 is necessary to clarify matters but that it is not retrospective. Both cannot be true. It is either necessary because it is retrospective and protects the Government from false imprisonment challenges, or it is unnecessary because it is already the position in law. The Government’s own impact assessment, when read carefully, shows that it has been unlawful since 20 October 2014 to detain people in the way that they have. Changing the law now and treating it as if it had always had effect will provide neither legal certainty nor foreseeability to people detained in these past 11 years. It only insulates the Government from challenge and inhibits people from having a domestic remedy and compensation for their unlawful detention.

This precedent of making the unlawful deprivation of liberty lawful places us on a very slippery slope. I ask the Government to reconsider their position on both these amendments, to repeal a section of the law that prior Governments passed in the Illegal Migration Act to erode our common law, and to leave out retrospectivity from their new detention order—all to uphold the right to liberty and to be free from executive detention, that most fundamental right of all. I beg to move.

16:30

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly set out why I do not think this is a particularly helpful amendment, which I am sure the noble Baroness is not entirely surprised to hear. Despite what she said, I am not sure the amendment is entirely intended to be helpful.

This is an area in which there is a balance to strike. The noble Baroness is quite right that the Illegal Migration Act shifted the balance—a little—in favour of the Home Secretary; the balance had drifted too far in the other direction. I strongly support the need for some limits and constraint on the ability of the Home Secretary to use detention powers, but if you are not careful, those who try to frustrate the system inappropriately—people who have no right to be here—will use the rules to frustrate an attempt legitimately to remove them from the country.

I saw many cases of people who had no right to be in the United Kingdom, and who had failed on a number of occasions to stay here through the legal processes, using this as another tool. If you have strict, bright-line rules, the danger is that people game and frustrate the system. The Home Secretary does not want to detain more people than is absolutely necessary; there is a very significant cost in doing so. As she well knows, the Home Office does not have an unlimited budget, but it is necessary to have these powers.

Certainly, the powers that were in place before the provision the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is trying to repeal needed strengthening. As I said, this moves things in the direction of the Home Secretary, but as with all the Home Secretary’s powers, she has to exercise them in a reasonable and lawful manner, and all the decisions she takes are challengeable by judicial review.

The Illegal Migration Act still refers to whether the detention is “reasonably necessary”. It still has that test, so the Home Secretary has to exercise that judgment. If somebody feels that the Home Secretary has got that judgment wrong, it is still open to them to challenge it. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the balance has shifted in favour of the Home Secretary.

I come back to what I said in the earlier group: there is a balance to strike here. Much of the debate so far is coming from one particular angle. I do not criticise the noble Baroness for doing it, but the other side of the argument needs to be put, so the House can hear a more balanced argument. We need a firm system which allows people to come to and stay in the United Kingdom if they are following our rules or have a legitimate asylum claim; equally importantly, where they do not, they should not be able to use rules and regulations that are there to protect people, in order to frustrate the legitimate exercise of that power.

To all those who want an asylum system, or one that allows people to come here legitimately, I urge them to be careful what they wish for, because we are getting to the point where the public are losing patience. Ministers are ultimately accountable both to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, but if the public do not feel that Ministers are accountable, or if they feel that they do not have the powers to deliver a system the public want to see, public belief and confidence in the system will disappear, and that would be very dangerous. Those who want a more liberal system would rue the day that that happened.

Therefore, having that balance is necessary. The changes made in the Illegal Migration Act to the powers on detention moved in the right direction. The fact that the Government, despite doing a pretty wholesale removal of the powers in that Act, have not removed this one suggests that Ministers think that shift in the balance was sensible. I therefore hope that it remains in place. Regretfully, if the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I will not be able to support it. I hope she understands why, and I suspect it will not be a surprise to her to learn that I am unable to support it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we should of course be aware of public feeling, but we should also not inflame it. We need to be careful with that. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to leave out Clause 41(17), which states that the amendments made by most of the subsections in that clause

“are to be treated as always having had effect”.

We should be very wary of the retrospectivity contained in them. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is about to finalise, I hope, a report on the rule of law, and we point to retrospectivity, or retroactivity—I am never sure whether there is a difference—as threatening the rule of law, along with legal certainty and so on. I am therefore glad that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just a brief intervention from us on this matter, which was raised in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for telling me what reasons he had for not taking out Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. It raises some further questions, which I guess the Minister might have been expecting. Essentially, the noble Baroness’s amendments aim collectively to inject greater protection of civil liberties and to ensure proportionality in the use of detention powers, and they demand clarity regarding the mental element required for the new immigration offences in the Bill.

In his letter to me, the Minister said of Section 12 that

“policies to differentiate in line with the provision can be resumed if required”.

He said that they

“are not currently in use”,

and they have not been in use since this Government took office. He said:

“This Government is prioritising steps to restore order to the asylum system”,


et cetera, as one might expect. But, he continued:

“While the Government reviews the approach, it would not be appropriate to remove these provisions from the statute book”.


Can the Minister tell me what review of what approach will determine whether this provision should be removed, and whether, in the immediate future, there is any intention to recommence Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act?

In conclusion, having some clarity on this matter would be useful. The Law Society, as noble Lords might expect, says that the retention of Section 12, by removing the

“court’s ability to decide for itself whether the detention of a person for the purposes of removal is for a reasonable period”,

risks increasing unlawful and prolonged detention. There is currently a legal aspect to retention; I know that it is not being used, but we need to ensure that the fallback described by the Law Society is in place. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making plain our opposition to the amendments in this group. In Committee, we spent much time rehashing the arguments over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We have made our position abundantly plain. It is obvious that there exists a gulf in opinion regarding that Act between many of us in this House. This is Report, so now is not the time for me to repeat those arguments. As noble Lords know, we strongly oppose the repeal of the bulk of the Illegal Migration Act, but I should say that it is at least some solace to us that the Government have deemed it right to retain Section 12. Since we support the Government’s intent to keep that section on the statute book, we oppose Amendments 28, 30 and 32, notwithstanding the elegant arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendments and how she presented them. She said that she was trying to be helpful and supportive on these matters, and I am grateful for that.

Amendment 28 seeks to add Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act to the list of sections of that Act being repealed under this Bill. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act establishes that it is for the Home Secretary, rather than the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for a specific statutory purpose, such as for removal. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised a point that I would wish to set out: the Home Secretary is a Member of the House of Commons, and I answer for the Home Secretary in this House on matters to do with the Home Office. Therefore, we are accountable to Parliament for the decisions that are taken.

The important point that I want to put to the noble Baroness is that, even with Section 12 in force, the courts will continue to have significant oversight over detention. That goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made today and my noble friend Lady Lister made in Committee. Individuals detained under immigration powers may apply at any time to the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber for immigration bail, where a judge will assess whether their continued detention is justified. If they consider that it is not, they will grant immigration bail. Therefore, the Home Secretary will have more discretion, but there will still be judicial oversight of immigration bail.

Additionally, as I said in Committee, individuals can challenge the legality of their detention through a judicial review in the High Court, where the court will consider whether the Secretary of State made a reasonable decision in detaining a person or in continuing their detention. If the court considers that the Secretary of State did not act reasonably, it will ensure that that person has access to an appropriate remedy, including ordering a release if appropriate. Again, there will be greater discretion for the Home Secretary, but there will also be strong judicial oversight and parliamentary oversight of this matter.

Section 12 simply makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s judgment of what is a “reasonable” period of detention should have more weight. That is logical, since the Home Office is in full possession of all the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. That could include safeguarding the public, safeguarding an individual or the issues of cost that have been mentioned. Ultimately, the Home Secretary will determine what is reasonable based on the information before her. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, added his voice to those general concerns.

Section 12 also provides for detention to continue for a reasonable period while arrangements are made for a person’s release. That is particularly important when, for example, we need foreign national offenders to be accommodated in a specific location in accordance with their licence conditions, or to make safeguarding referrals for vulnerable people. Previous case law established the principle of a grace period to enable a person’s release, and Section 12 now provides legal clarity by placing that on a legislative footing.

Section 12 applies to all immigration detention powers. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 30, which is consequential to Amendment 28, seeks to ensure that the provisions that apply to Section 12 are repealed. Although I know that the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful on this matter, for the reasons I have just set out, it is right that Section 12 is retained for all immigration detention powers, to give the Secretary of State an additional discretion. None the less, that will be subject to parliamentary oversight and judicial oversight.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to remove the retrospective effect of Clause 41. As Members have discussed, Clause 41 clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good and consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose.

16:45

I argue that it remains the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. The key challenge of not having the retrospective effect—this is the key point that a number of noble Lords have mentioned in their contributions—would be that such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings. Clause 41 clarifies these powers. It is not expected to increase the use of detention powers, but it is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked when and how we can review this matter. We will keep all matters under review. There are further potential issues around immigration and asylum trailed with the immigration White Paper. We have got to keep these matters under review at all times. I would argue to both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers is still subject to all the legal oversight that she would wish it to have and is ultimately still subject to parliamentary scrutiny on how those powers are exercised. I will answer to this House if there are any abuses of that power that Members wish to draw to the attention of either House—to the Home Secretary or to me, as the Minister accountable in this House. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I deeply regret that I did not come to him with these amendments before to discuss them a little bit more. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who started to raise deep, dark political waters that I definitely do not agree with him about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Amendment 29

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

29: Clause 38, page 32, line 22, leave out “28” and insert “29”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I also have Amendments 69 and 79B in this group, which includes Amendments 29A and 31A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Amendment 29 would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force.

Section 29, if enforced, would broaden the public order disqualification to mandate—because “may” becomes “must”—that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection, identification and support; are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK; and may be removed from the UK, unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I say “broaden” because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low-level offences, which takes us into the territory of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate—if not in its own terms, though there is some consensus around that, in that the offenses which are excluded are too few and it does not exclude some that are not so serious.

The clause provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it is also inadequate in the awareness of the clause, and therefore whether it should be brought into consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum seekers commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would

“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.

I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point and the Government responded, saying that this section would, if commenced, bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. I again emphasise those two words because it is not mandatory only if there are “compelling circumstances”, which is a difficult phrase—difficult ever to prove.

Amendments 69 and 79B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused or exploited people are involved. They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation; it applies also to other people—their colleagues—who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, although I do not resile from it.

We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 Act, if that was the right occasion. We have had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which included both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the Minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion. However, the passage of time has not changed the issue, even though we may look—certainly I do—rather different from how I did in that photograph. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about tackling organised immigration crime. He used the term “turbocharge”, and I have already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I have searched for a sort of equivalent terminology and all I have come up with is “not steamrollering them”.

The Minister referred to the NRM—the national referral mechanism—providing

“a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1486.]

The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. He said also:

“In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan”—


that is, the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers—

“and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1484.]

I did word searches on the White Paper and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I will return to all that in Amendment 44, probably on the next day of Committee—although, of course, if there has been any reconsideration to date, I would be happy to hear it. I could not find “Kalayaan”. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but, if it is there, perhaps I could be directed to it following the debate.

The most important point is that the Government recognise that there is a genuine concern around here and intend to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information or news that the Minister can give the House today would be welcome.

The two other amendments in this group would retain Sections 22, 23, and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act; in other words, they would bring in Section 29, to which I have spoken, and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. They raise the question about how the noble Baroness considers we should treat victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM. I beg leave to move Amendment 29.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendments 29A and 31A would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern slavery clauses and provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The net effect of them would mean that individuals who have entered illegally would not be able to use modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal, but it is important that we continue to support genuine victims at the same time. The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, while they were necessary back in 2023 when this Act was passed, the need for them has become even more pressing now.

I declare an interest as a former Home Office Minister who led on the modern slavery support system and has seen the challenges of operationalising this system and protecting victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do.

The world has changed. Since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we built, for very good reasons, over a decade ago is now being stretched, and in some cases exploited in ways Parliament never intended. In particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all over the world, rather than for our own citizens who have been trafficked and abused. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.

In 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK, at 43%. This concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary who said, in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one-in, one-out asylum-seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France, that some asylum seekers were making “vexatious, last-minute claims” of being victims of modern slavery to block removal. The Home Secretary and the Government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That is the fastest way to tackle this, if they can perhaps get over the “not invented here” objection.

When we have these debates, those who do the important work of supporting victims will claim and state, rightly, that it is impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused. I agree with that, which is why I have tabled amendments later on to address that point. But, whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we have seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. The people who are being referred now are non-UK nationals: the largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. For context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2,500 referrals, yet last year it handled nearly 2,500 referrals just from Albania. This surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course also on taxpayers and on the public purse, because the Government have committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system.

In the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act that my amendment seeks to retain, my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, speaking for the then Government, said:

“It is a central tenet of the Bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in Clause 2 will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom. It is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom. Whereas in 2019 just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%”.”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1784.]


Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. I follow my noble friend Lord Harper in asking this House to be honest that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low. These amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry.

17:00

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and the three amendments that she has in her name, Amendments 29, 69 and 79B.

Amendment 29 seeks to repeal Section 29 of Illegal Migration Act and to remove individuals who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”. We have heard clear warnings that Section 29 represents a dangerous expansion of the public order disqualifications originally introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Crucially, Section 29 transforms the disqualification of potential and confirmed victims of trafficking and modern slavery from a discretionary power to a mandatory duty—unless compelling circumstances exist. This mandatory disqualification extends to non-British nationals sentenced to imprisonment of any length for a crime of any seriousness. This blanket approach fails to consider that victims of modern slavery are frequently coerced by their traffickers into committing criminal offences. By lowering the threshold so severely and making disqualification mandatory, there is an increased risk that vulnerable survivors will be denied protection, denied a recovery period and ultimately be removed from the United Kingdom, potentially exposing them to re-trafficking or retribution. The International Organization for Migration has explicitly called for the repeal of this section.

The Government argued in Committee that Section 29 needs to be retained for its potential “operational benefit” and to allow flexibility in reforming the national referral mechanism. While reviewing the national referral mechanism is vital, retaining a measure that institutionalises the potential criminalisation of victims is fundamentally unjust and unnecessary. Section 29 seriously undermines our commitment to tackling modern slavery. We must uphold our duty to protect the exploited.

Amendment 69 would introduce a new clause to strengthen protection for victims of slavery or human trafficking by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This amendment seeks to establish crucial firewall arrangements. Its intention is to safeguard vulnerable individuals by preventing public authorities, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. That firewall is critical for many people to report on what is happening to them.

We must ensure that these victims feel safe seeking help and engaging with the national referral mechanism process. Without a robust firewall, a victim coerced into illegal entry might fear that disclosing their history of exploitation to obtain assistance will simultaneously expose them to immediate prosecution and removal. It is chicken and egg, egg and chicken. This is an unacceptable dilemma for them to face.

Amendment 69 seeks to weaken the grip of traffickers and enable victims to come forward and seek justice. By implementing this firewall, we align safeguarding duties with our enforcement aims, preventing information provided for protection purposes being weaponised against the victim by the state.

Amendment 79B seeks to address a fundamental vulnerability in our system: the inherent conflict faced by a victim of labour abuse who is simultaneously subject to immigration controls. This secure reporting clause is designed to prevent information disclosed by a victim or a witness of labour abuse being used for a purpose within Section 40(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007, which of course is the gateway for immigration and nationality purposes.

This firewall is desperately needed because exploitative employers rely on the fear of their workers that authorities will prioritise issues around their immigration status over the abuse that they have faced. Unscrupulous employers use threats about illegality, detention and removal as a method of control and coercion. This turns the state’s immigration framework into a tool of the exploiter—Amendment 79B would combat this.

These Benches also oppose Amendments 29A and 31A, which are a reversal of the modern slavery safeguards that appeared in the Illegal Migration Act. Sections 22 to 28 of the Illegal Migration Act removed protections for victims of modern slavery who had arrived in the country without a valid visa. The current Bill includes the repeal of those sections, a step that is widely welcomed, because these positions could have been catastrophic for survivors. Therefore, we support the Government in proceeding with these amendments and in removing those sections from the Illegal Migration Act. Section 29, as proposed here, is dangerous because it expands the scope of public order disqualifications and makes them mandatory. This measure mandates disqualification for potential victims of modern slavery unless there are compelling circumstances, even if they have been convicted of an offence of any length.

In conclusion, we support the Government in their intention of removing those sections in the Illegal Migration Act and press them on a way in which the firewall of which we have spoken earlier can be protected.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, efforts to tackle modern slavery are indeed a noble and important cause—we all agree on that—but, as my noble friend Lord Harper said in Committee, there is a balance to be struck.

My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch has made many of the points I would have made, and I will not repeat those arguments, particularly on Report. Suffice to say, however, that protections which were initially intended to protect victims of modern slavery have now become loopholes that are being exploited by those with no right to be here, and whose claims are too often totally spurious. It does our country no good. It does not build public faith in the immigration and asylum systems when illegal migrants abuse modern slavery protections to circumvent their own legitimate deportation.

To that end, my noble friend Lady Maclean is right to highlight that the Government have a number of legislative tools at their disposal. It is unfortunate that they are seeking to repeal those powers, and even more unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats wish to remove those others that the Government intend to retain.

We take particular issue with Amendment 69. When it comes to tackling the border crisis, surely there cannot ever be enough information sharing. The noble Baroness’s amendment would prohibit public authorities mentioned in it sharing information regarding a suspected victim of modern slavery. We fear this may only encourage more people to make spurious claims in a last-ditch attempt to halt removal from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for this series of amendments. Having served as the lead shadow spokesperson for the Labour Party in the other place on the Modern Slavery Bill in 2015, I can say that we continue to be steadfast in government in our commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors.

Amendment 29, from the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. I argue that Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that it can be considered for future commencement alongside potentially wider reforms as part of the Government’s commitment to work with partners on the long-term reform of the national referral mechanism. I will come back to that point when I discuss Amendment 69.

Amendments 29A and 31A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seek to retain further modern slavery sections from the Illegal Migration Act and for those sections to be commenced on the day this Act is passed. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, the Government have been clear that we are repealing those sections because we have committed to ending the migration and economic partnership with Rwanda, which we did not feel served a useful purpose. The Government are going to retain only the measures in the Illegal Migration Act that are assessed to provide operational benefit in delivering long-term, credible policies to restore order to the immigration and asylum system. I am afraid that Amendments 29A and 31A, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, are not ones that we can accept today. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for her contribution and for raising those issues.

Amendment 69, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, seeks to prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench, made valid points on the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German.

On restricting information shared in respect of modern slavery identification, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides certain public bodies in England and Wales with the statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking. This information provides that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims. The duty to notify is discharged for adults by making a referral into the national referral mechanism for consenting adults, or by completing an anonymous entry on digital systems where the adult does not consent. The information provided is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales and to help improve law enforcement responses. It does not include—this is the key point—information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to the inclusion of that information. It should be noted that child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism. As such, the national referral mechanism referral discharges the duty to notify.

This is another key point. If a person is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are currently eligible for a recovery period during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support, unless disqualified on grounds of public order or bad faith. Imposing restrictions on the information provided to identify and support victims of modern slavery would be to the detriment of our obligations to those vulnerable people and, I suggest, to our duty to protect UK borders and protect the public.

17:15

It may help if I inform the House that we are continuing to look at longer-term reform of the national referral mechanism, including the possibility of updating and looking at new modern slavery legislation. The Home Office organised a call for evidence over the summer on how we can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery. It focused on definitions of victims of modern slavery and on improving identification and the decision-making process for the national referral mechanism. The call for evidence has now closed and we are currently analysing the responses received.

Amendment 79B would bar information being used for an immigration purpose if it was provided by victims or witnesses of labour abuse in connection with that abuse. Under Clauses 27 to 31, the HMRC and DVLA trailer registration datasets, referenced in the amendment, will be collected for specific purposes. I assure the noble Baroness that these do not include information provided by victims or witnesses of labour abuse in connection with such abuse. The HMRC data is held solely in connection with its customs functions and relates to processes by which goods and cash cross the UK border. The DVLA trailer registration data is limited to basic details about UK-registered trailers and their keepers. Sharing both datasets with the Home Office enables better identification and detection of border criminality that would not be identified if the data were analysed in isolation and not significantly shared at all.

I affirm to the noble Baroness that serious labour abuse and exploitation are issues that we take seriously. That is why we have spent many hours already in this Session of Parliament on the Employment Rights Bill, which includes specific and significant provisions aimed at strengthening employment rights and protecting vulnerable workers, and, at the same time, removing abuses from the system as a whole.

We must remember that mechanisms already exist to support those with insecure immigration status who are victims of abuse. The national referral mechanism is in place specifically to ensure that individuals can be properly identified and supported. The issues in this group have been worthy of discussion but I ask noble Baronesses and noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is an expert on the Modern Slavery Act, as are the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. I am not. Can the Minister explain, as I still have not quite got it, why it is right that, if Section 29 survives from the Illegal Migration Act 2023, a known victim of modern slavery, if convicted of a crime, loses all the protections that he or she has had as a victim of modern slavery and is to be deported? The opposition argument against Amendment 29 seemed to be that it would create spurious claims of modern slavery. I follow that argument to a degree, but what about the person who has an established claim under modern slavery legislation and is entitled to asylum here but, if Section 29 survives, will be deported? Have I understood it correctly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling me an expert on modern slavery matters. I dealt with the Bill 10 years ago, and a lot of swimming around the goldfish bowl has been undertaken since then. We should recognise the importance of that Act in establishing basic criteria, which the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, brought forward, and which I, as the then shadow Minister, supported and tried to stretch even further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, continues to remind me.

The key thing about the point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is what I referred to in opening: a case-by-case basis. The Act, if commenced, would amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for deportation, but on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from the modern slavery protections on public order grounds. It is important that we do not have a blanket dismissal but do have the potential for the national referral mechanism, the Home Secretary and others to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He shakes his head to say that it does not, but sometimes I cannot satisfy every Member of this House. I say to him simply that the case-by-case basis means that if someone wants to make the case that they should not be covered by this, the opportunity is there for them to do so. I therefore beg that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to the reporting restrictions, as in two of the amendments in this group, I say again that it is a matter of how those affected perceive the situation, because that affects their behaviour. With regard to Amendment 29, of course, the provision has still not been brought into force. I wish the Home Office had the courage of its convictions and got rid of it.

If we are being told, as I think we are, that the subject of modern slavery, protection for victims and so on may come before us in some new form, and is certainly being considered, that would be the point at which to bring in some of what is in Section 29 if that was thought to be appropriate—some but not all of it, perhaps. I can hope only that it remains not brought into force. I do not think that is a very good way to deal with legislation, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Amendment 29A not moved.

Clause 39: Sections 37 and 38: consequential amendments

Amendment 30 not moved.

Amendments 31 and 31A not moved.

Clause 41: Detention and exercise of functions pending deportation

Amendment 32 not moved.

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

33: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make legal aid available to detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that civil legal services in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the relevant time.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation);“relevant time” means—(a) the time at which a person is first detained under a relevant detention power, and(b) if a person has been released following detention under a relevant detention power, the time at which they are next detained under a relevant detention power.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems appropriate that my Amendment 33 is being debated at the start of Pro Bono Week, given that it is the one amendment which deals with legal aid. At the heart of this amendment is the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. As I was delighted to see in pursuing this amendment in Committee, these values are beyond party politics; they are universally accepted across the House and, I would like to think, across the country.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people in the custody of the state for immigration reasons are provided effective legal advice and representation within 48 hours of being detained. At a time when we are seeing more accelerated processes—for example, the UK-France treaty—and the growth in the number of people being detained, I argue that this matter is more urgent than ever. Indeed, individuals flagged for deportation under the UK-France agreement must respond to the Home Office’s notice to remove them within seven days. As such, it is surely even more essential that legal advice is provided early and quickly, within 48 hours.

Briefly, I will remind the House of the basic problem of legal aid deserts in immigration. First, 60% of people in England and Wales are unable to access a local immigration legal aid lawyer; and, secondly, 55,000 people are unable to get an immigration legal aid lawyer when they need one. It is both the law and Home Office policy under all Governments that people should be able to receive legal advice before they are removed. There is no suggestion from any Front Bench that this should change. As such, the more effective the provision of legal advice and representation, the more effective the immigration system can become.

I want to develop three points that were raised in Committee. The first is the cost of the amendment; the second—and at the heart of the amendment—is whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is working; and the third is the cost savings that will flow from improving the availability of legal aid lawyers.

First, in our Committee debate, some Peers, and the Minister himself, questioned the cost of accepting the amendment. I underline that the amendment does not expand the scope of eligibility for legal aid. Anyone who receives legal aid due to this amendment was already entitled to it. This amendment is about improving the speed and quality of that advice, which, frankly, is woeful at present.

We always understood that the amendment was, in effect, cost-neutral to the legal aid budget; it would not increase or decrease legal aid eligibility. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming this understanding in a letter that noble Lords will no doubt have seen, and which has been placed in the House of Lords Library. This is a targeted amendment meant to help the Government fix the most broken part of the legal aid system, which is liable to collapse without some fairly urgent intervention.

Secondly—and, as I say, this is at the heart of the amendment—I want to address whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is working effectively. I will remind the House of the basic system. There are two schemes for providing legal advice in immigration removal centres and prisons: the detained duty advice scheme, or DDAS, and the telephone legal advice service, or TLAS.

Research going back more than a decade reveals that, since the cuts in 2011 that the House knows about well, there has been a sharp drop in people accessing the schemes I have just mentioned. A survey this year by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 27% of respondents held in immigration removal centres had a legal aid solicitor. This contrasts with 75% pre the LASPO Act.

Crucially, this is not because people do not want legal aid and help but because they cannot access it. In my work on this amendment, I was fortunate to speak to many immigration experts and civil society organisations, to whom I owe a great deal for their help in preparing it. These experts and civil society organisations provided many practical examples of the government schemes failing to provide the very basics of access to justice. For example, I was told of a victim of human trafficking who simply stopped hearing from his DDAS lawyer after weeks of working together. He met five other lawyers, none of whom had the capacity to take on the case. It took 15 other referrals by Bail for Immigration Detainees to secure a legal aid lawyer.

Another example is of a case concerning a vulnerable adult at risk, with serious mental health needs, who tried five times to secure a lawyer through DDAS over two months. He could not secure one and had to be supported through a charity outside the scheme. He was later granted bail by the Home Office, perhaps indicating that this was not—as some undoubtedly are—a meritless claim. The House may hear of other egregious examples during this debate.

17:30

These cases are not exceptional. People in dire need of support, such as victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, and refugees—not people abusing the system—are every day of the week either not receiving legal aid support at all or receiving very poor-quality service for capacity reasons. The current government schemes are not working satisfactorily, and I argue that they need urgent change.

Thirdly, I will expand on a point made by several noble Lords in Committee: the “argument from economy” was how the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, put it. Put simply, how could this amendment actually save the taxpayer money? The Public Law Project has carried out research on cost shifting in immigration and legal aid—or how cutting legal aid forces up costs for other government departments and public services. In a 2024 report, it identified, first, that there are costs to the Ministry of Justice and the courts and tribunal services: parties who are unrepresented need longer hearings and more support at appeals, and they are more likely to pursue low-quality appeals and need more adjournments. Secondly, there are costs to local authorities. The longer an asylum claim remains unresolved because people are unable to access legal advice and representation, the longer local authorities have to provide housing support and support for asylum-seeking children in their areas, for example. Thirdly, there are costs to our NHS. People who are not properly supported suffer from greater ill health and mental stress, especially when combined with pre-existing traumas, placing a burden on health services. Hospital discharges can be delayed by unresolved immigration applications, because there may be no suitable accommodation to discharge a patient to.

In 2024, the Access to Justice Foundation commissioned a report entitled The Value of Justice for All, with the Bar Council, to quantify the savings to government from an effective legal aid scheme. It concluded that, for every £1 spent on free legal advice, the state saved £2.71—a saving of almost 3:1. An effective legal aid scheme saves money; it makes obvious economic sense.

I am eager for us to make concrete progress on improving access to justice in this area of immigration detention. The current system is not working, and serious steps need to be taken to fix it. This amendment has the advantage, perhaps, of being consistent both with principle—the requirement that all asylum seekers in custody should have early and effective legal advice—and with practicality and good sense, at no extra cost. Indeed, this is an opportunity to save overall public funds. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment led by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which I was pleased to co-sign. The noble Lord rightly spoke about the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. He referred to the UK-France deal. I understand that, at Brook House, a large number of people were detained and notices of intent to remove them were served on 25 August this year, with a deadline of 1 September to respond. But no appointments under the detained duty advice scheme were available until at least 2 September—the day after they were supposed to respond.

Previously, on the attempt to remove people to Rwanda, the Inspectorate of Prisons, during its 2022 inspection of Brook House—which of course is an immigration removal centre—noted that one detainee

“understood that he needed to reply to the notice of intent within seven days but described his escalating panic as he could not speak to a lawyer as the window drew to a close”.

The inspectorate said that, in the five cases it looked at, no detainees had replied to the notice within the seven-day window or before the decision to issue removal directions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, astutely argued, this is an “invest to save” amendment. It reminds me of the one I am backing from noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the right to interpreting and translation services—the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has been kind enough to meet with us—in that there might seem to be an upfront cost, but it will actually make the system work more efficiently and save money. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, there will be costs to the Ministry of Justice and the courts and tribunal services, with unrepresented parties with longer hearings, more support at appeals, more adjournments, and so on. There will be costs for local authorities, with unresolved asylum claims meaning that they have to provide housing support for longer, et cetera. There is a cost to the NHS, given the mental stress and ill health of people who are not properly supported.

This reminds me very much—I hope noble Lords do not think that I am going down a rabbit hole—of diabetes technology. It might seem absolutely nothing to do with this subject, and it is not, but my late husband was a type 1 diabetic. For a long time, the NHS was very reluctant to supply insulin-dependent people with diabetes with technology such as insulin pumps that enabled much better control of blood glucose. Better control means fewer hypos—hypoglycemic incidents—a severe one of which could require hospitalisation. The problem, as I understand it, is that the cost of the technology is on the GP budget but the cost of the hospital stay is on the hospital budget. There was no overall cost-benefit analysis, and you can see that all around the NHS, of course. Eventually, some bright spark realised that, with diabetes taking up 10% of the NHS budget, it made no sense not to invest in people having much better blood glucose control—but it took a very long time.

There has to be someone who takes a holistic view of all this and sees that you do not actually save money in the longer term by failing to support, in this case, an effective legal aid scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, concluded, an effective legal aid scheme saves money; it makes economic sense.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of which I too am a signatory. The principle is not controversial; the principle is established, and this really seems to be a matter of organisation, but one that has been as neglected as the somewhat remote but interesting analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, illustrated with cogency the extra costs to the Ministry of Justice of improving availability of legal aid. There are no extra costs of improving legal aid; there is a net financial saving, as long as the organisation is improved. Indeed, organising the availability of legal aid as required by law would remove not only the expensive delays to individual cases but the controversial delays to them, which in some instances have led to demonstrations—at hotels and other places where significant numbers of asylum seekers are living. I suggest to the Minister that simple adjustments to the system of dealing with asylum cases could make a huge difference to processing that vast cohort of cases, including the required provision of legal aid.

Just so that we see what we are looking at, I suggest that an overwhelming majority of the cases fall into two easily identifiable categories. First, in truth the majority are cases with no or almost no merit, which can be dealt with quickly. Secondly, there are cases with obvious merit that need to be separated from the critical mass early so that they can be dealt with on their undoubted merits.

I have some specific suggestions to make to the Minister—and I am afraid that there are a lot of mnemonics in what I am going to say. I suggest that the asylum intake unit, or AIU, the national asylum allocation unit, or NAAU, and the Home Office Third Country Unit—which, if it has a mnemonic, is HOTCU, or hot queue, which is quite descriptive of what is happening—should all be placed at detention centres or other facilities where applicants are resident in large numbers. The processes could then be completed within days, save in exceptional cases.

When there is a refusal, the appellate tier, the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, could also sit at or near the same premises. That chamber, without undue difficulty, could locate tribunal chairs to near the point of residence or at it, and each applicant’s case could then be considered first as a paper application. That is exactly the process followed in judicial review cases, where paper applications are considered in large numbers by single judges. I know that because I did it for a number of years, as a deputy High Court judge. Through a process like that, using the Legal Aid Agency on-site too, one could deal with these cases in a short time—within days. At the same centres, the Legal Aid Agency, through its civil aid service, could provide officials directly, not necessarily through law firms, if at each centre there were persons trained in immigration and asylum legal aid to consider each case.

Although we have heard that there is a shortage of lawyers to deal with immigration legal aid—and there is—one of the main problems is the absence of a critical mass for lawyers to concentrate in one place. If there is enough work, there will be some lawyers there to do that work; if there are only one or two cases, the lawyers simply will not do it. That is the law of supply and demand, which applies equally to legal services as to any other service. I suggest that if the Government and the department managed these services holistically and efficiently—heaven forfend that they would—these cases could be dealt with and the numbers reduced in half a minute less than no time, to coin a phrase, or certainly within a very short time.

The sense of urgency that this process requires, as I have described, is uncharacteristic of the legal system. As a lifelong professional member of the legal system, I plead guilty to that much. But knowing it as well as some of us in this Chamber do, I believe that the legal system can adapt to speedy processes when the merits require it and there is a right to legal aid, for example. So let us concentrate on dealing with the backlog, giving people legal aid and allowing them legal advice, but doing it promptly while providing a fair system—including, of course, legal aid.

17:45

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. What I have to say is almost redundant, but I will still emphasise a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, admirably highlighted why the current system needs fixing and the rationale for it. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has given some practical advice on how we could speed up the process. If the amendment were accepted, it would improve the efficacy of the system and access to justice and, in the long run, as we have heard, save money.

It is worth emphasising that this amendment does not seek to extend the scope of the current provision of legal aid; it merely seeks to improve its effectiveness and access. As we have heard, in the light of the UK-France deal, the shortcomings of the scheme are even more evident, because those detained under this deal are facing greater risk of not having legal representation before they are removed. Experience shows that in substantial cases there have been delays of more than seven days in accessing DDAS, thus depriving people of opportunities to receive legal aid. We are very grateful to charities working in this area for providing examples; they have shown the inadequacies of the current system and drawn attention to the delays and the inability of individuals to get timely and proper assistance.

The failures of the scheme are not new; they were evident well before the UK-France deal and were highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2022, during his inspection of the Brook House immigration removal centre. The benefits of this amendment are self-evident, and I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment and some very critical advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on how to improve the process and organisation of the scheme.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment. In July I visited Harmondsworth IRC as a member of the APPG on detention. One lesson I learned from that was about the poor quality of legal advice and access to it. I heard from talking to some of the men who were detained and NGOs working there that the failure to provide decent legal advice for the detainees is a systemic issue that needs addressing urgently.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this was Pro Bono Week. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that he has fulfilled his job for this House. I am sure that the Minister will be very grateful for the advice that he has given pro bono and I hope that, if he asks for more, the noble Lord will be willing to give it.

I have learned two things from what has been said so far in this debate. First, we have a crisis of legal aid. No one who has spoken has said that it is all fine and dandy. Secondly, what is available is not working well.

On the first of those, a survey by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 42% of people held in IRCs had a lawyer in their immigration case in 2025. That is a steep decline, down from 75% in 2012—some years ago. For those detained in prison, 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under the scheme. The second concern raised is of course about what is provided; that is the 30 minutes, often considered to be of doubtful quality and insufficient. As professionals have argued, immigration law is highly complex: those of us who are working on the Bill will understand that this is a very highly complex area of work. It is unrealistic to believe that a detained person, who may be traumatised, speak little English or have just arrived, can navigate this complex labyrinth of law on their own and without professional assistance.

The amendment is necessary not merely on humanitarian grounds but to protect the integrity of the rule of law itself—first, access to justice, and secondly, practical effectiveness. I do not want to repeat the points about cost, which are obviously going to come up in the response, but it would save taxpayers’ money: invest to save early. That is quite clear from everything that has been said so far. We must be clear also that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 6 of the European convention, so this amendment offers a practical and necessary solution to a systemic failure. It mirrors existing successful arrangements, such as the immigration police station advice scheme, which is used when detained persons are found to have no criminal element in their case. It would simply ensure that an immigration lawyer is allocated to an individual upon entering detention, providing a necessary check against unlawful incarceration and ensuring fair process.

I end with a quote that was given by one of the organisations working in this field:

“Ensuring prompt legal counsel for detained persons is not merely a gesture of goodwill; it is the necessary foundation for a fair judicial process. A system that incarcerates first and allows access to justice later is like starting a race 48 hours behind the starting gun—the individual is severely disadvantaged before they even begin to fight for their rights”.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee we had a very detailed and well-informed discussion of this amendment in the existing framework of legal aid in the asylum and immigration system—with a House full of eminent lawyers, this was always bound to be the case. On our side, of course we welcome efficiency, and we have looked hard at this amendment, but we are not persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and other noble Lords that the proposals they advance will have the beneficial effect that they seek.

Amendment 33 would ensure that any person detained under a relevant detention power would have access to a raft of legal aid within 48 hours, but to move from the current situation, where a person is given a 30-minute window for free legal advice, to one where there is a 48-hour window in which legal aid can be given, would come with entirely unknown costs. The current system already diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need: every pound spent on repeat litigation, in particular, is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. We are unable to support Amendment 33.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had, limited though it is, to speak to him outside the Chamber about the motivation for the amendment, which remains unchanged since Committee and would seek to impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours of them being detained. I note the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Lister for my noble friend Lord Bach. I cannot go as far, dare I say it, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his denunciation of my noble friend’s amendment, because I feel it is a point well made, but I assure him and other noble Lords who have spoken that access for justice for those in immigration detention is a priority shared by the Government.

I agree with those who spoke in previous debates on this subject, and indeed today, that provision of legal aid for those seeking protection is important in maintaining an effective asylum system, reducing costs and reducing the asylum backlog. Indeed, it will help to end hotel use and increase returns, because speeding up the asylum process depends on good legal aid, but also depends on the measures that the Government are taking separately, putting extra investment into that area to speed up asylum claims. That is why, as I noted in the previous debate, we have legal aid available for asylum cases and immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery, separated migrant children and those challenging immigration decisions.

As I noted in the previous debate, to additionally support detained individuals, all those in immigration removal centres can access the 30 minutes of free legal advice that has been described today, through the detained duty advice scheme, DDAS. This triage appointment supports people to meet a legal provider who may provide further legal advice, subject to the matter being within the scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility for that legal aid.

Concerns were raised in the previous debate about the take-up of this advice. I can assure noble Lords that all detained individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre are advised of their right to legal representation and how they can obtain such representation. That is done within 24 hours of their arrival as part of their induction. All individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre in England are booked an appointment with a legal representative under the scheme that I have just described, unless they decline to have that appointment. Their appointment will take place as soon as possible after they attend the immigration removal centre, which could be as early as the next working day, but obviously, as noble Lords have mentioned, it may on occasion be longer. We have produced leaflets in 26 languages on the operation of the scheme, and I therefore suggest gently to my noble friend that Amendment 33 would have no material effect on access to justice, as those in the system are entitled to an initial appointment under that long-standing scheme.

In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I questioned the potential cost of this. I have had the opportunity to look into the costings, and I just clarify that the Government’s position on this is not now related to cost. This has been assessed, and we have looked at it in detail. Were the proposed amendment to be passed, the overall spend on legal aid would be unaffected, so the cost element is not one of the things that we need to look at now, because there is a high likelihood that detained individuals will seek legal aid-funded support regardless of a time limit, and their eligibility for legal aid would be unchanged were a time limit to be introduced. The concern and discussion around the amendment is based on the consideration that existing arrangements already enable detained individuals to seek an initial appointment, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

I reiterate to all Members the vital role that legal aid plays, both in mainstreaming and maintaining an effective immigration and asylum system, and ensuring that the most vulnerable, such as victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, can navigate the complex legal system. As my noble friend mentioned and knows, we have taken important action to support the provision of immigration and asylum legal aid. The Government have confirmed uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which is a significant investment and the first since 1996. The Government are also funding the costs of accreditation for immigration and asylum caseworkers, providing £1.4 million in 2024 and a further £1.7 million this year.

I want to continue to work with my noble friend Lord Bach and with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to look at how we can improve the efficiency of this system still further. I am happy to meet them to look at the suggestions that were made today. Those made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are hot off the press this evening and worthy of examination. I am happy to reflect on those and to work with my noble friend Lord Bach. I suggest to him that the amendment does not add to what we currently offer and therefore I ask him to withdraw it, with the assurance that we will look at the issues that both he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.

18:00

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for what he kindly offered at the end. I particularly want to thank all those who have spoken in support of this amendment. I hope the House will accept that they carry with them a huge amount of experience in this area and should be listened to with great care.

I am afraid there is a legion of examples where the system is not working as well as the Minister suggested it was from the information he has received. The classic example is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned, which refers to the first group of asylum seekers to be detained under the treaty with France. That is not a treaty I object to—in policy terms, I agree with it—but in this particular case, they were allowed seven days to make their response and representations. A seven-day notice was served on them. Presumably, they were entitled, as anyone else in their position, to the 30 minutes of free advice. However, it seems not one of those men received any legal advice in the seven-day period. Two were apparently—I emphasise “apparently”—informed that they could not have legal advice, and only two days after the seven-day period had run out was the serious error put right with an additional advice shift.

As I say, this is not an attack on the treaty or what it is trying to do. It is an attack, if I may use that phrase, on the system that allows this to happen. The speeches that were made in support, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, should make the Government think carefully about whether this system is working as well on the ground as they think it is. I hope all the government departments involved—namely, the Home Office and particularly the Ministry of Justice—will look at the system, see how it is working, keep an open mind and make changes for the better in due course.

In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister for his offer of a meeting after this debate is over. I will certainly take that up and I hope others will as well. I never had any intention of calling a Division on this issue. The idea behind it was to try to persuade the Government that there is a real problem here. I hope that we have managed to do that in this debate. I seek permission to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

34: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Offences and deportation(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection (2) and (3).(2) For section 3(6) substitute—“(6) Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom.(6ZA) Subsection (6) applies to a person who—(a) is not a British citizen, and(b) who is over the age of seventeen.”(3) In section 24—(a) for subsection (F1) substitute—“(F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable on conviction on indictment to removal from the United Kingdom.”,(b) after subsection (F1) insert—“(F2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the deportation of any person convicted of an offence under subsections (A1) to (E1).”, and(c) in subsections (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1), (E1) and (1) omit instances of “knowingly”.(4) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).(5) In section 32—(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;(b) in subsection (1)(b) for "and” substitute “or”;(c) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”; and(d) omit subsections (2) and (3).(6) In section 33, omit subsections (2), (3) and (6A).(7) In section 38—(a) omit subsection (1),(b) in subsection (2)(a) for “does not include” substitute “includes”, and(c) in subsection (4) omit paragraphs (b) and (d).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in this country, who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Enaze, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year-old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail, but the sentence was suspended for 24 months. Consequently, he will be spared jail time and, under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation.

Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 as it stands permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but is not specified under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported. This is obviously wrong. This is a man seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK who is being housed at the taxpayers’ expense. He is a convicted paedophile and yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country.

The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would change that. Amendment 34 would ensure that, where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. First, it proposes an alteration to Sections 3 and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would change the current discretion in Section 3 for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to Section 24 would ensure that, where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person’s removal.

Secondly, my amendment would amend Sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign-national offenders—that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign-national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. We know that this Government have released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences. Their Sentencing Bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year. The Government claim this is necessary due to prison capacity. Of course, if the Government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign-national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces.

The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen. Even after the Government bring in changes to the early removal scheme via Clause 32 of the Sentencing Bill, a significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign-national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. Amendment 72 tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson would ensure that they were given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support.

Where this Government have acted, we will support them. They have increased the rates of removal for foreign-national offenders, and that is welcome, but it is not enough. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support Amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.

The amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility of and duty on the Government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here and who have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If you come to this country and make it your home, you must understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. The amendment would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public safety of the British people.

The increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021 and 2024 was three times greater than that of British nationals, at 19.4% compared to 5.9%. In 2024, there were 20,866 non-summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate, as my noble friend said. Albanians take up over 1,000 prison places. To my knowledge, they have been part of neither the British Empire nor the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union. Therefore, why is this the case and what are Ministers doing about it?

At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders released and not deported rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The Government need to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove new offenders who present themselves.

This Government can blame only themselves, in all honesty, for this crisis, for which they have no solutions. Their cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and their activist so-called jurists have facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as by some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers.

The necessity of this amendment—the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing—has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released and then deported only after he was recaptured. He was then paid £500 so that he would not try to challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers’ money in case he tried to claim asylum. The Government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely without causing a disturbance is the only way forward. That is not the best course of action. An individual who has been convicted and has served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.

On a wider question, could the Minister advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan states, and the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago, on 8 September? On that date, the Minister stated:

“We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate … Later this year … we will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1164.]


I ask the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation?

I concede that the Government have moved in a positive direction. Around 5,100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which, to their credit, is more than the just under 4,000 deported under the previous Government. That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily.

I spoke in Committee about a

“chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1157.]

That mismanagement has now been brought to public attention. In the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and that is what this amendment brings.

I agree that my own party’s record was suboptimal, but this Government have had 16 months to develop—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

That is being polite. They have had 16 months to develop a workable strategy, yet the one-in, one-out strategy is an embarrassment and an international joke. Plans to spend vast sums of money on asylum hostels and houses in multiple occupation continue, and we are welcoming Gazans and their families without any proper security vetting or due diligence.

18:15

We need a strong, firm response to bring this deep-rooted issue under control. The British people want the Government to act. There has been some positive progress, but they need to go further. On that basis, I commend this amendment to the House.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support very strongly Amendments 34 and 72. I imagine that if the public are watching this, this is the first amendment this afternoon for which there is wholehearted support. This is just common sense. Personally, I would like anyone who is not a British citizen—a foreign national—who has been sentenced to prison to be deported as soon as they are sentenced, but I accept that this may be going a little too far for noble Lords. At least when they have served their sentence, they should be deported.

I will raise a couple of very quick points about the concern in Northern Ireland which the Minister will know about. The other three recent Bills on this issue—the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act—were all ruled by the courts in Northern Ireland as unworkable in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to be very clear that this is meant to be a Bill for the United Kingdom.

Because of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which includes commitments that Northern Ireland will keep pace with certain EU rights, it is absolutely clear to me—and I hope to the Minister—that if the EU law says something different from our national law, EU law applies on these kinds of issues. Therefore, there could be two categories of people in Northern Ireland courts. It seems beyond doubt that convicted foreign criminals who are EU citizens will have the additional protection of the EU citizens’ rights directive. Those who are not EU citizens will still have enhanced protection from deportation under the Windsor Framework. This means that Northern Ireland could become a real magnet for foreign criminals.

The current Government have appealed a court ruling on this issue, which is very important, and we hope to get that result from the Supreme Court very soon. When this Bill goes through, we cannot end up with part of the United Kingdom not being able to deport foreign nationals in the same way.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I will raise two points. I very much support someone who has an order of deportation being removed, as I suspect the whole House does. However, Amendment 34 is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested, for somebody who has a prison sentence; it applies to anyone who has been convicted of an offence. Does that mean that if somebody is convicted of careless driving, they are actually to be deported? On reading Amendment 34(2), that is exactly what it appears to mean. That seems to me a trifle extreme.

Secondly, although I recognise that deportation to a safe country that is prepared to take the person back is one thing, where, I wonder, does the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, intend that people who have come from unsafe countries should go to? What concerns me is that when someone from Afghanistan, Syria at the moment, Darfur or Iran, commits an offence, it is unlikely that they could be sent back there. Therefore, where, according to the wording of this amendment, should these people go?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, would the noble and learned Baroness agree that it could also be described as extreme that, as per Amendment 72, a deportation order would not be subject to appeal under the two Acts cited, or any other enactment, and that:

“A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court”?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support both these amendments. It is sensible that we set a presumption that those who are here effectively as our guests have to follow the rules. Insisting that they be deported if they commit crimes strikes me as very sensible. Putting it in statute is important. We have done this before in the past, when we were having problems with courts interpreting very broadly some of the human rights legislation around people’s right to a family life. We made some clear rules and put them in primary legislation in the Immigration Act 2014, and that largely—not entirely—dealt with those problems. There was a rule in there that if you were given a prison sentence of a certain length, you had to be deported. This is a logical extension of that. It would strengthen the Government’s hand in a number of the cases that my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron set out, where Ministers sound as frustrated as the rest of us that they are not able to deport people, or, if they are, only after a very lengthy legal process.

To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about challenging the deportation, my noble friend’s amendment is drafted as such because the person concerned would have had the opportunity under the criminal law to challenge his sentence if there was some issue with the legal case, but, having been convicted of the criminal offence concerned, it should follow that they are then deported. You should not get a second bite of the cherry to have, in effect, another appeal when you have already had the chance to appeal against the sentence in the first place.

The other benefit of these amendments is that, although initially they would indeed be challenging for the Government for the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out, including around where you can send people back to, the proposal would force the Government to do two things. First, it would force them to engage with some of the countries where returning people is more challenging. You can do that by sending people back before they finish serving their sentence—you have a prisoner transfer agreement, where they can go back to their home country and continue serving the sentence in that country, before their release from prison. That is the preferable outcome, where they still have a measure of justice.

The second thing the proposal would do is force the Government to confront the cases that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out. I accept that they are challenging, but it cannot be right that, because somebody is from a certain country, they can come to the United Kingdom, commit any level of criminality and, once they have finished their prison sentence, we cannot get rid of them.

We should force the Government to confront two tests. The first is to ask whether someone who comes from a country that we do not deem safe should forfeit the right to not be sent back to it by their conduct.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I will address the second test after I have given way to the noble and learned Baroness.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

What about careless driving? The noble Lord is dealing with people who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, but the wording of this amendment would include careless driving.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I suggest that careless driving is not a trivial offence. When I was Immigration Minister, I dealt with a father who had lost his child because of someone’s poor driving. We were struggling to remove that person from the country for a similar reason to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, set out: they were an EU national, and there was a stricter test about whether you could remove them. I have to say that that father who had lost his child thought that that driving offence was really serious, so I would not trivialise it at all.

The second test is that, if we cannot deport someone to the country from which they came, we should look at whether there is an opportunity, as we set out in our Rwanda policies, to deport them to another safe country. It is very clear that the British people do not want serious criminals who have come to this country staying here. We can have a debate about the detail of this, but the principle is very clear. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address the principle of whether he thinks that people in the circumstances set out by my two noble friends should be able to stay here.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want to follow the argument that the noble and learned Baroness tried to raise. Looking at the wording, I am afraid that the process would still be very long. The proposed new clause in Amendment 34 states:

“Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom”.


Let us say that this person has committed grievous bodily harm and has been tried, and the jury say that he is guilty and so he is found guilty of the crime that is committed. The noble Lord is saying that, immediately, that same court must sentence this person to deportation. But the person who has been convicted in this country has a right of appeal. They may challenge the way the jury was selected, the way everything happened and the sentence itself, saying that being sent back to the very dangerous place that they left is condemning them to death. Should the process of appeal still happen, what the noble Lord is saying would not happen immediately.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That was quite a lengthy intervention, with a number of points. The case raised by the noble and right reverend Lord about a country that we would normally deem not safe is a perfectly reasonable one. But, as I said, my challenge back is this. Is there any offence that people who come from certain countries to which we would not normally return them can commit that is of a level of seriousness that we think should make them immune to being sent back to that country? I believe that there are certain offences that people commit for which it is reasonable that they forfeit the right to stay in the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly reasonable case.

It may be that the wording in these amendments is not entirely perfect, but the argument that we are having is whether, if you come to this country and you commit a serious sexual offence, for example—as in my noble friend’s example—or you murder or rape somebody, you should be able to stay here for ever because the country from which you came is not ideal and we would not normally send you back to it. That is a debate worth having. I think the general public would take a much more robust position in those cases than many Members of your Lordships’ House would feel comfortable with.

Finally, I challenge the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Jackson did, having got in before me, to respond to the points in the debate we had earlier about what the Government will do to bring forward amendments or changes to how they interpret human rights legislation to give them a better chance—I am assuming the Government will not accept these amendments—of removing people who we know the Government would like to get rid of. In the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson set out, it sounded to me as though Ministers were very frustrated—as frustrated as he is. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I could be accused of being extreme on these issues, and therefore I want to apply a very serious matter here. This is an issue that most disturbs people in Britain. There are those of us who are determined to protect a multiracial society, who strongly believe in people living with each other and who are proud to have their grandchildren educated with a wide range of different backgrounds in schools that care about that. We are very concerned when we do not deport people who have been guilty of offences, because it is felt by the majority of people in Britain not to be sensible to keep in this country people who have committed offences.

18:30

It is clear that this amendment is faulty because, frankly, we are not talking about offences of a very minor kind. I hope the Minister will help people like me, who are entirely moderate about these issues. Every time there is a case when someone is not deported who has been found guilty by a British court of an offence of a serious kind—or merely of a kind that we believe that people who are our guests here, because that is the circumstance, should have considered as part of their responsibility to live here in peace with the rest of us—those loud-mouthed people of the right are given yet more reason to be incendiary.

I am sorry that my noble friend used some of the words that he did in defence of his amendment, because I think his amendment—properly amended, so that we do not get ourselves into the concerns raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—should be supported by people who could not accept some of the things that he said. What he and the Front Bench have put forward is something that the Government really have to answer, because the public feel strongly about this—as do I. I do not understand why somebody who is not a citizen and who commits a crime should not be deported. I understand that some of those circumstances will be difficult because of the country from which they have originally come and that we need to amend this amendment properly to meet what we really want. But will the Minister accept that, unless we face up to this issue, we will constantly be giving to people, whom we do not want to stir up trouble, the most wonderful opportunity to do so? That is why these amendments have to be taken seriously.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to something that has always puzzled me. Article 8 has two paragraphs. The first is about

“the right to … private and family life”.

The second states that you can ignore that if it is

“in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

I do not see the problem with inserting something such as that into the Bill, whereby we can remove people if they breach that. That is part of Article 8, which is not at all about an unqualified right to a family life.

On the point about “careless driving”, that term is used if you have made a bit of a mistake, whereas “dangerous driving” really is a dangerous offence. I can see how that would qualify, but I am not so sure about careless driving—it depends on the circumstances.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson. This is the type of debate that we need to have in this Chamber. These are wide moral issues that go to the heart of what we do with our justice system.

Something that has been forgotten in the debate is that the purpose of some measures—which have been described by some as extreme and, somehow, a little too far reaching—is to have a deterrent effect. We sometimes forget that that is the purpose of some law. It is not about having something in place so that, after an event has happened, we can do something that is proportionate to the person who did it; it should be about the knowledge of the wider public, whether that is our standing population or those who are living among us and seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and reasonable behaviours expected of us all. If we have what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, they could perhaps facilitate better behaviour. I do not think we should be frightened of this.

We need to have a wider debate and for the Government to open up more countries to be deemed acceptable and safe. We hear that our European neighbour countries are taking a rather different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, from ours in this country. I do not think that their human rights industry has quite got to the advanced state that we have in the UK. We have an opportunity here for the British public to realise that these Houses of Parliament are listening to them and their concerns, so I welcome this wider debate. If we do not adopt these amendments today, the Government should take on board how they can move towards the position of the wider public.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is entirely positive that we can say, “Let’s look at the wording of this”; we might have some qualms about whether we need to reword it to avoid unintended consequences—that is fine. The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made a good point: this is a very important moral debate. It is one that more and more people in the country are frustrated that Parliament is not having, so it is positive that we are doing so today.

I will emphasise three things. First, we often consider what will happen to the safety of people if we deport them to countries that we deem unsafe. But the key question is actually: what about the safety of British citizens? They get forgotten in that whole discussion. We end up with this ridiculous situation where we say, “Oh, I’m really worried about this person who has committed a serious sex crime. If they are returned to their country, they might be thrown into some terribly unsafe prison. They might be beaten up or killed for the fact that they’re a sex criminal. We’ve got to save them”. We say that rather than emphasise the victims of that person. That is why people get frustrated about the topsy-turvy nature of this.

Secondly, until we legislate on this, the British public could rightly say that the Government have no control over a decision, which they want to make, to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country. That is entirely appropriate for legislation, even if we need to work out the wording so that it is proportionate.

Finally, we are about to start the Sentencing Bill, which I am very interested in. The state of prisons is incredibly depressing at the moment. In fact, while we are talking about unsafe places, I do not know that going to prison here is safe for anyone. They are overcrowded and there are serious problems with our prison system. It is unexplainable that we would have people in that prison system, taking spaces that we just do not have, when we should, by right, be able to say that they do not deserve to be in this country. They broke the social contract after they were given an opportunity to be here. Sometimes they are illegal—that is different—but if they are given the right to remain, and then they murder, rape or steal from their fellow citizens, they have broken the basis on which we trusted them to stay. That is reasonable to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a good point: this is not an extreme position but a normal, commonsensical position. Based on everything I have heard from the Government, I think they agree with that. If they do, they need to legislate accordingly, which is what these amendments are trying to do.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I think it will be no surprise to Members of the Conservative Party that we oppose Amendments 34 and 72. It is quite interesting that, once the rat had been let out of the sack that the amendment was not capable of being put to the House, of course, this debate turned into a Second Reading debate about other issues on the way we should be talking about this matter. I will turn to that in a moment, but let us just take these amendments at face value as they are written, because that is what the Report stage of a Bill is about: reporting about amendments which we are discussing, not about raising other issues which should have been raised at Second Reading way back in the beginning.

These amendments embody an approach of absolute and mandatory deportation that sacrifices judicial discretion and proportionality in favour of unworkable rigidity, thereby undermining fundamental legal safeguards and international obligations. Amendment 34 proposes a sweeping new deportation regime. The explanatory material states:

“This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom”.


Further, it seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 by requiring a court to sentence a non-British citizen over the age of 17 convicted of “an offence” to deportation from the United Kingdom. You might call this the “Mars bar” scheme, whereby anybody who steals a Mars bar will be deported, or, perhaps, if that was not serious enough, you may have to steal a multi-pack of Mars bars rather than a single one.

We must oppose this proposal on multiple grounds. First, there is a lack of proportionality and balance. The amendment would introduce an obligation to make a deportation order with no exceptions and no discretion. Such an absolute provision ignores the circumstances of the offence, mitigating factors or the length of time a person may have lawfully been in this country. It comes to something when a noble Lord prays in aid the ECHR to support us against an amendment from the Conservative Party. That is an extremely interesting way forward.

Secondly, on risk of torture and human rights breach, this obligation to deport would apply even if removal would send the person concerned to a country where they would face torture or even, in some countries, where they have capital punishment. The proposal is unworkable and contrary to our international obligations.

Thirdly, on vulnerability in modern slavery, Amendment 34 would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. For example, a small child who arrived in the UK, committed a crime, was sentenced to prison and was subsequently found to be a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of forced criminality would be subject to automatic removal without any court or tribunal mechanism to consider the circumstances of their case.

Fourthly, on eroding criminal safeguards, Amendment 34 seeks to amend Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 by omitting instances of “knowingly” from certain immigration offences. Removing this element of mens rea—a lack of knowledge as a defence—will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Amendment 72 would place a duty to remove foreign offenders on the Secretary of State. It mandates that a deportation order must be made against any non-British citizen who

“has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment”—

this is different in this amendment—and “has completed their term”. Crucially, it dictates that:

“The Secretary of State must make the deportation order … within the period of seven days”.


This amendment falls foul of some of the critical flaws in Amendment 34—first, in terms of an unworkable timeline and mandatory duty. Placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to execute a deportation order within a rigid seven-day period against any person sentenced to imprisonment disregards the complex process required for removal, particularly when a human rights for protection claim is lodged.

Secondly, there is an absence of scrutiny and due process. Such an absolute obligation removes necessary judicial oversight and requires deportation without considering the individual’s human rights. The objective of mandating deportation in this manner risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not necessarily increase removals from the UK.

Thirdly, the amendment conflicts with legal principles. In mandating deportation for any offence, conviction without exception, it ignores the fact that deportation orders can be made against those who are victims of coercion or human trafficking. To support these kinds of absolutist amendments, especially in the context of deportation, is incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and due process.

We must remain resolute in our commitment to deport those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK, but the paths produced and proposed by Amendments 34 and 72 substitute effective, balanced legislation with measures of legal absolutism. We must empower the Government to act decisively, but we must do so in a way that respects fundamental rights, due process and proportionality. These amendments fail all those critical tests.

18:45

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for tabling the amendments, because they have, self-evidently, generated a good discussion on some important principles. For the avoidance of any doubt, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Lord Harper, that the Government will oppose these amendments tonight, but that does not mean that they will oppose the principle of deporting foreign national offenders.

I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his measured approach to this issue—I often find myself agreeing with him now, which is contrary to what I did during the whole of the 1980s. I will take that back as a potential area of support, and I appreciate his reasoned approach to this issue, because he is right; it is important that the British people know that the Government will take action on these issues, that there is fairness on these issues and that this Government are not going to tolerate foreign national offenders committing offences in this country. That is why, and I say it to all noble Lords who have spoken today, in the period between the July of the general election in 2024 and July of this year, the Government have increased the number of foreign national deportations by some 14% over the previous year under the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, shakes his head. The Government have increased the deportation of foreign national offenders during this year. The noble Lord referenced the previous Conservative Government. In the past year, from July to July, 5,200 foreign national criminals were removed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that is why we are trying to meet the objectives that he has set. It is important that individuals in the country know that.

Amendment 34 would seek to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of “an offence”—I take the point mentioned by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—committed in the UK without consideration of their human rights. Amendment 72 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation. Both those issues remove protections for under-18s and for victims of human trafficking in the face of the UK Borders Act 2007. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation on any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord German, on that were extremely important.

Just to back up what I have said with regard to the performance on removal of foreign national offenders, noble Lords have made some important points about how we need to put in place prisoner transfer agreements. When a Minister of Justice, I spent part of 2009 negotiating such an agreement with the Nigerian authorities. It is important that we continue to do that and continue to work with our partners, but no one is going to reach a prisoner transfer agreement if we ignore human rights issues under our international obligations. Nobody is going to sign one of those with this country if we are ignoring our human rights obligations as a whole.

What are the Government going to do if we oppose the amendments proposed by the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, today? We are going to simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders. We are going to take further targeted action against any recent arrivals who commit crimes in the UK before their offending can escalate. Later this year, we are going to set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. Later this year, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, we are going to look at Article 8 and how we can streamline that proposal. We are going to bring forward legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK, striking that right balance between individual family rights and the wider public interest—the very point that the noble Earl mentioned.

Those are things that the Government are going to bring forward later this year. It may not satisfy noble Lords that we are not doing it today, but we are going to bring those things forward. However, the amendments before us today would not be workable and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, they would be contrary to our international obligations.

Again, I recognise that some Members of this House will want us to walk away from our international obligations. I understand that, but our obligations are there, and we do support the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory. We support other human rights legislation, which is important, and I do not accept that Amendment 34 or Amendment 72 would help us maintain an international reputation, which I think is important for the UK to maintain.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I hope the Minister will accept that we are discussing a Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. What he is saying is what the Government are going to do. The problem for some of us is that this Bill ought to have had this in it, and as a result, we have two unsatisfactory amendments; but the only way that we can bring home just how serious this is to the Government is to ask: how on earth can we produce what will be an Act without what the Minister is now saying is going to be? That is the problem we all have.

We support the Government’s very considerable improvement. I have already said to my own side that I think a bit of humility about how well we managed some of these things would help a lot. That does not mean to say, however, that there should not be a bit of virility about asking the Government to act more quickly. It should have been in this Act, which is why some of us are going to find it very difficult not to support the amendments, not because we think the amendments are right; not because they should not be different; but because the Government have produced a Bill which does not have this in it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the Government made in the general election, including the establishment of a Border Security Commander. Going back, for example, to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned about Albania, that Border Security Commander has established a Balkans task force dealing with a whole range of issues there to tighten up our performance with countries such as Albania. This Bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been around a long time. He knows that the Government have processes to follow and legislation to bring forward.

I am saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined: detailed reforms on ensuring that our laws are upheld; simplifying the rules on processing for removal of foreign national offenders; and strengthening public interest tests under Article 8. That is going to happen in very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a Government. Actually, if I go back to the point that the noble Lord mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign national offenders removed from this country by 14%, so it is an absolutely important matter that we have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me an important question, and I just want to give her a response on this. Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunities set out in a particular part of the Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had before Brexit cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit.

The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon and Ors v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s application, JR295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.

Bluntly, the bottom line is: when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised today to give greater support and clarification. But I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very spirited. I listened very carefully, especially to the Minister, who has unfortunately not accepted Amendment 34. We stand by this amendment: there are far too many foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences and who will not be deported if we allow the law to remain as it is. My noble friend Lord Deben and others are absolutely right: this is of huge concern across the United Kingdom. The Government’s plans do not go far enough. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

18:55

Division 1

Ayes: 182

Noes: 227

19:07

Consideration on Report adjourned.