Lords Chamber

Tuesday 11th November 2025

(began 2 months, 4 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile and are often musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or in a West End production. In order for that to go ahead. I saw that as arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. So what work is the the Minister's department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, but also to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his question. It's absolutely vital that people do get that because that people do get that because there is occasionally short notice, and there are occasionally the need to potentially put additional to potentially put additional concerts or gigs on because there's a greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. certain times and certain sectors. So the point he's made it absolutely valid in a European context, which is, I think, where context, which is, I think, where he's mainly focussed, that forms part of our examination on the reset.

We do have the best regime reset. We do have the best regime at the moment of any European country for allowing that movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, but there is European Union, but there is obviously, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out, and are, how we can iron them out, and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Bring police force records in England and Wales under legislative control and to make police forces subject to the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records under the Public Records Act 1958
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to earn that level of revenue. Second oral question Lord Faulkner of Worcester. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Implications of net airport expansion for the UK's net zero target and economy
-

I beg leave to ask.
14:59
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
The question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the the Climate Change Committee. C.c.c. is the independent adviser to the government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The government has committed to routinely engaging the C.c.c. as routinely engaging the C.c.c. as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent expansion can be made consistent with our net zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Task Force.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

through the Jet Zero Task Force. My Lords, the the aviation industry will never be industry will never be environmentally sustainable. I really think this government ought to understand that. And at the moment, what's happening is the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are actually protected from flights are actually protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers aren't, and potentially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EV drivers as well. So why not tax frequent. Flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and leave EV drivers alone? So this government is making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There's industry more sustainable. There's a bill before the House on sustainable, on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. It's also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to 2.3 billion over ten years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next generation sustainable technologies. The distance band structure of Air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty, and similarly, given that Air Passenger Duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.

those who fly most often pay more.
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I completely agree about the role of the BBC in soft Power, and particularly the World Service and BBC verify do a tremendous job. I will go as far as to say that they are saving lives every day with the work that they do. On the issue of art, I think it is right that the British Council makes these decisions. If they wish to dispose of assets and they have assets other than an art collection, of course that is a decision for them.

I'm not suggesting that they do this. They came to me previously with that suggestion. If there is a way of avoiding doing this and that would be their preference, then that is well within their powers to make that choice. There is no pressure from anyone that I can see to make them make a particular decision. But what they have to do, they have to do this and they would agree with this, is they've got to get themselves on a stable footing.

We have to arrange, we have to make an agreement with the Treasury on this loan, and we will we will do that because terms should be agreed. They should have been agreed at the time the loan was made. But, you know, other people will have to explain why that wasn't done, but that that needs to be addressed. But even if the loan is taken out of the equation, there must be a stable financial footing for the British Council with a modern vision for the future of their activities, because they are absolutely vital.

We'll work with them to make sure it happens, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need to take responsibility for this. To my. Lords. That concludes our questions for today. Any members wishing to leave today. Any members wishing to leave My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we now My Lords, we now come My Lords, we now come to My Lords, we now come to two instruments previously debated in Grand Committee.

Protection of Grand Committee. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Definition of Relevant Land Amendment Order 2025. Relevant Land Amendment Order 2025. Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 48, amendment 59. The Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Browne of Ladyton. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 59, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the. And the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, whom I thank for Baroness Hamwee, whom I thank for their support. I also again thank the noble and learned Lord Lord the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and Right Reverend Lord Lord Sentamu, for the support and committee during which I proposed repeal of section 59 of the Illegal repeal of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, 2023.

I propose that we bring to an end the proposition that states may be declared safe, despite the objective evidence that they are not. I explained why there should be no blanket ban on considering human rights claims, when such claims have nothing to do when such claims have nothing to do with the states safety and everything to do with family unity. everything to do with family unity. Ties of dependency and the best interests of children. My Lords, I have no doubt that banning all have no doubt that banning all family claims of European wives seeking to live with their British husbands and children when American wives, for example, would face no such impediment, will make us no friends.

In Europe, however, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act does precisely that. It extends what was a minimal pre-existing duty to declare asylum claims from EU nationals inadmissible to also cover human rights claims from EU nationals, and a much wider list of states that the former UK government has called safe. Despite these anomalies, noble Lords will recollect that I did not push to a vote my amendment to repeal section 59. Instead, I promise to return to the issue.

Lord Suri my noble friend, the Minister's response I understand the position of the government to be that the retention of section 59 is worthwhile, given the flexibility it offers in ensuring Unmeritorious claims do not unnecessarily absorb limited resources. However, further, on the 3rd of September, in response to the debate on amendment 59, my noble friend the Minister responding in particular to noble Lords Cameron and Davis, said the government is wary of inadmissibility duties that could result in a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible and who would be then in a holding position, unable to be removed.

Even if their claims are genuine. This part of my noble friends response can be found in Hansard for the 3rd of September at the volume 848, column 825. For the reasons which my noble friend set out, section 59 inevitably will gather in its net fish we do not intend to catch, including those with meritorious human rights claims whom we cannot lawfully remove. Therefore, while I appreciate that there must be a mechanism to manage claims fairly and efficiently, clearly that mechanism, I have to say now, given the minister's own words, is not section 59 in its current form.

Amendment 59, my noble Lords, that the numbering is an unintentional coincidence is an attempt, helpfully, to suggest to the government how it might turn section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into something workable and operationally useful. It alters, rather than repeals, section 59. It furthers the government's objective of keeping a mechanism on the statute book that might be used to increase efficiency, while at the same time ensuring that it can be operated lawfully and in a manner that does not breach fundamental human rights.

Should the government ever wish to implement it. To this end, my Lord, the amendment does three simple and minimal things. First, it turns what would be an unworkable duty to declare claims inadmissible into a workable power. So to do interestingly, when by coincidence such a change is in harmony with clause 38 of the bill, which scraps other unworkable duties in the Illegal Migration Act in creating a workable power, our amendment frees the hands of the Secretary of State to give her true flexibility over when and in relation to whom the power is exercised.

If my noble friend the Minister disagrees with her amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify when and why a statutory duty gives greater operational operational flexibility than a statutory power. If the Minister is able to give an example, that would be greatly helpful to noble Lords, Second Amendment provides the simplest and most minimal of safeguards. By inadmissibility, the government is saying, we do not wish to even consider this claim. All this amendment does is say you need not consider it if if to fail.

So to do would result in the UK breaching its obligations under the Human Rights Convention, a convention to which our government has committed to remaining a party. Undoubtedly, the courts will not presume it is the government's intention to breach its international law obligations, rather than leaving the murkiness of exceptional circumstances to save the government from illegality. It is much simpler if we. And by we I mean Parliament, were to write what we mean on the face of the statute book, rather than hoping what we mean will be read by the courts into the legal uncertainties of a non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances.

I appreciate that if section 59 were ever fully commenced, the government would have to issue guidance giving its interpretation of exceptional circumstances. But such guidance is not an aid to statutory interpretation, as this government intends to comply with its human rights convention obligations. Our proposed minimal safeguards should not pose any obstacle to it. However, it provides guardrails that future governments that should should future governments have different intentions, and that may be a possibility that is nearer than we would like to think.

If this government does not intend to implement section 59, they should amend it. If they will not repeal it. If the government does intend to implement it, they must be prepared for litigation and to be tied up in the courts for the rest of this Parliament, trying to explain whether it is compliant with human rights and what they mean by exceptional circumstances, will the exceptional circumstances should not be made to do all the hard work and be interpreted expansively in order to comply with human rights that will only bring unnecessary criticism down upon our human rights framework and overcomplicate the matter for our courts.

I would also suggest, as a matter I suggest, a matter as important as this should not be left to guidance to be interpreted by the government of the day, it is our job. It is Parliament's job to set the appropriate boundaries. If the Minister disagrees with me on this point, I should be grateful if he would clarify how the exceptional circumstances test would apply to EU nationals making private life claims, or even seeking entry to live here with their families, would they really only be considered exceptionally, or would they be considered as a matter of course? How about Georgia? Would protection claims from Georgian nationals only be considered exceptionally? What further exceptional circumstances would the government need simply to admit the two above claims? Third, and finally, the amendment creates a simple mechanism for a state to be removed from the safe state list.

If the Secretary of State considers that it is no longer safe in general, or safe for a recognisable section of the community, and this amendment, we have listed the descriptions of persons who may be unsafe because of their sex, language, race, religion, nationality, membership of a social or other group, political opinion or any other appropriate attribute or circumstance. Only truly safe states should be on the list at all. This again furthers operational efficiency, as it ensures caseworkers need not make hard case by case decisions about whether to declare a claim inadmissible when the government already considers that the state generally is unsafe or ordinarily unsafe for minorities.

Fortuitously, the government already has agreed to undertake a continuous review of the safety of the states on the list and has agreed to remove from the list states that are no longer safe. Therefore, this amendment wholly is in line with their own commitment. Also, my Lords, I would urge the government, if they resist legislative amendment to the status quo, to consider how future governments might behave and whether they might share in the government's commitment continuously to review safety. The future governments wish to act as if unsafe states are safe because they were added to a list.

Once upon a time, we must be able to have a proper debate in this House. I need not remind noble Lords of the tortuous fiction that followed Rwanda being added to a list of safe states. No state should be legislated as perpetually safe. I know this government recognises that fact. Therefore, in section 59, it is only logical for there to be a clear safety valve, a review mechanism to avoid repetition of the idea of a state once designated as safe, being forever deemed safe.

I urge my noble friend, the Minister, to consider these three practical recommendations. This government need not retain and be haunted by unworkable and performative provisions, by past governments of its intentions or operational flexibility. Upholding our obligations under the Human Rights Convention and balancing efficiency against the need for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairness. I beg to move the. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. My
15:47
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 59, to which I have added my name, along with the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Hamwee, and which was moved so effectively and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. I spoke during Committee stage, my Lords, on the importance of our amendment then, and the one before your lordships today reflects changes which we believe will make it attractive to the government, as well as being a balanced and effective approach.

And I hope the government will agree with that opinion. As has been said, once fully commenced, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act would make far reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum and human rights protection claims from EU and other nationals introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We believe, my Lords, that this will likely result in violations of the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations at Committee stage, our amendment one 104 sought to repeal, as my noble friend had said, section 59 of the IMA in full.

It was widely supported, and I was particularly pleased by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Following my recognition of the importance of the Supreme Court judgement of 2010, H.J. Iran versus the Secretary of State, Home Department, he was, as we know, my Lords, one of the justices in that case, the concern at committee and the concern now is about the efficacy and the legality of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act.

As currently drafted. The government has made it quite clear that it believes section 59 of the IMA must be retained, hence why we have tabled this new amendment, which looks to make changes to section 59, with the intention, my Lords, of ensuring that it can provide the flexibility that the government may require. But in an effective and legal manner that has as few unintended consequences as possible. To put it briefly, my Lords, this amendment would turn the duty of the Secretary of State into a power.

It clarifies the exceptional circumstances test. It provides an effective mechanism for the management of the safe states list and the removal of states which are no longer safe. Importantly, it would enable the United Kingdom to uphold the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be less likely to be challenged within the courts for a state to be safe, my Lords, it must be a state where, and I quote, its citizens are free from any serious risk of systemic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents, which the state is unable or unwilling to control, and for a serious risk to exist in general.

And I am quoting from the Supreme Court judgement of 2015, R Brown, Jamaica versus the Secretary of State. As I said during Committee stage, there can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. In relation to H.J. Iran's Supreme Court judgement, the hard won legal rights for LGBTQ plus refugees are meaningless if the safety of states does not account for their safety. Such refugees will have to hide fundamental parts of their identity if they cannot leap over the exceptional circumstances test currently in place, and if they are sent back home in contravention.

My Lords of the Iran judgement. But surely, even if there clone claims are declared inadmissible, this government will not return them home and force them to live in hiding in a state the UK has called safe but is not in reality safe for them. Therefore, I look to the Minister to reassure me on that particular point. If there is a real risk, a person will suffer inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to their home country, it would be a breach of their human rights to fail to rigorously scrutinise their claim.

Therefore, I believe such claims must be considered. This means if the wider inadmissible inadmissibility test is to be kept, it must be altered. Similarly, hard won gay marriage rights will mean little. My Lords, if we must still show exceptional circumstances before a national of a safe country may be permitted to live here with their British or settled partner. These are some of the reasons we have had. We have added to the exceptional circumstances. Test the requirement for the government to the to consider these claims.

If failure to consider them would breach the Human Rights Convention. Arguably a minimal safeguard to ask for. In conclusion, my Lords, I hope the government will have the courage to do the right thing and accept its human rights obligations and adopt this amendment, or at the very least, further reflect upon the amendment and our submissions. I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I did support the amendment when it appeared in committee, and I think it has been quite improved. And therefore, I
15:53
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
quite improved. And therefore, I want to say that I agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Brown and Cashman. So I don't want to go more than what actually they've said, because they put the case fairly clearly, and I think it must be a welcome that this particular amendment actually turns the duty into a power, because to declare as a visible human rights asylum claim, which may not actually, in the end, be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK's obligations under the Echr.

That's that, to me, is the nub of it, and therefore Secretary of State, instead of just simply having a duty, has actually a power to do something about it. It is inability under the Human Rights Act sometimes for people to know this has been breached, but then we should put it right. And it seems to me this particular bill gives the opportunity of turning a duty into a power. But also it does another thing, it turning a duty to remove states from the safe states.

List of no longer safe. And I think to have a list of which you can't actually have the power to do so, or the duty to do so can prolong are really a misnomer. And people therefore think when they come from some places that were safe yesterday and tomorrow, they are no longer safe. It seems to me that the Secretary of State needs actually be given this particular duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is just so changeable.

Who believed that when a South Sudan became independent and everybody was so full of rejoicing, I was involved in a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda because I was a judge up in the North and actually hearing cases and the sheer carnage that went on in that country. So many years of people's lives ruined, destroyed. And then peace came and everybody rejoiced. It wasn't long before warring factions and almost tearing apart that country. The carnage in Darfur was just quite unbelievable.

And then what happens? Sudan, which was being ruled by a dictator, and then that government is overthrown. And overnight law and order begins to collapse. And it wasn't very long before you had two warring factions actually test tearing that that country. Yes. We go we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations. But, my friends, we almost haven't got the the wherewithal to actually deal with such brutality. So a country which was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess sexual state because we created a list under that particular act should have the duty to remove that country, because it's been judged as no longer a safe country.

My Lords, those amendments, I think, are in keeping with what? And I'm very grateful how much this government at the moment, which says that they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law, and there is nothing here which is not being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported by the rule of law. So I support the amendments. Here, here.
15:57
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Very briefly. My Lords, can I first of all give apologies from the noble Baroness Hamwee again, the noble Baroness Hamwee again, who is still not well. And I know that she would have intended to support this amendment, as it is now. Quite clearly, what Lord Browne has done here is presented us with a very neat solution to a problem which the Minister noble Lord, the Minister, espoused during Committee stage, and quite clearly also he is sought to do what I think is the purpose of this whole amendment to make sure that previously unworkable and unsatisfactory legislation was converted into something which had a sense of purpose and direction, and was understandable and had clarity and definition within it.

I would just the House what the noble Lord, the Minister, said to me in reply to the question. Part of the Illegal Migration Act. And he said, we are in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals, from countries that we would generally consider safe. That's the reason that was given for attaining this particular clause section. And of course, the word generally safe. I think the noble Lord Cashman has just expressed it. There are many, many countries which may be safe for some people, but not safe for all people.

In fact, the one that sticks out an absolute mile at the moment, of course, is Georgia. If you have any political thought, which is nothing to do with the Georgian Dream, you will be in prison. I think I've lost count of the number of politicians who I have met, and I know that other noble Lords in this House have also met, who actually, after the day after we met them, said, well, I'm going back to go to prison because I'm going to be arrested simply because they were not speaking on the they were politicians elected by the people, but who were not speaking on behalf of the government and were speaking out against the government.

So that's that generally considered safe means well, in the generality, it's safe to send people to Georgia. You'd be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know that there are very disgraceful ways in which these politicians in that country have been have been treated. So in conclusion, I would say to the noble Lord, the Minister, this is a worthy solution to a problem which has been identified in the context of having wanted to retain that section of the Illegal Migration Act section 59.

You have before you a workable solution to make it, to make sense of it and to convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position to something which is exactly the opposite. So we on these benches would commend it.
16:00
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton. For bringing his amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For bringing his amendments and for his submissions today, which I listened to very carefully to indeed, and to the case that he indeed, and to the case that he made for for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, which we did explore in terms of the general explore in terms of the general issues at Committee stage. That said, regretfully, we cannot support this amendment. I don't support this amendment.

I don't think that will come as a massive surprise to the noble Lord because this amendment, in our view, would this amendment, in our view, would weaken the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims, and consequently, we rights claims, and consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord on his attempt to downgrade the duty his attempt to downgrade the duty under section 88 A to a power that may, rather than must be exercised by the Secretary of State.

Despite that he does rightly, the noble Lord does rightly draw the Lord does rightly draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the list of safe countries under section 88 with his amendment. That's an important part of the act. So to conclude, can I simply ask the noble, the Minister, a couple of questions about that list? Can I ask him whether the government has plans to expand the list to better reflect the number of safe countries there are across the world? And can he set out the process of engagement that exists between the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that that list is kept up to date?
16:02
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and my noble friend Lord Cashman, and with the support of the noble Lord for the amendment today, I was also pleased to have the opportunity to meet with my noble friend outside of the committee to hear his concerns at first hand, and may I just also wish the noble Baroness Hamwee again all the best for a speedy recovery. Back to this place. The amendment 59 seeks to change the way in which section 59.

That is confusing, I know, but the section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2022 would, if fully commenced, amend the inadmissible inadmissibility provisions of section 80 and section 81 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Now, I'm grateful to my noble friends for the consideration they've given to this matter, and I acknowledge the importance of the issues raised. As my noble friend has said, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act has not been fully commenced. The government have been clear that we're retaining it to allow for flexibility.

That goes for, again, the point that the noble Lord German mentioned for its future implementation in a way that best assist us to address the significant challenges brought by asylum and migration. Section 59 itself will, if commenced, amend section 80 A of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the effect that the existing inadmissibility provisions in respect of asylum claims made by EU nationals will extend to human rights claims made by nationals from a wider list of countries set out in section 81 of that act.

Now, the first part of the amendment in my noble friend's name seeks to change the duty at section 88 to a power and to add an explicit provision allowing the power to be exercised only where it would not result in a person's human rights being breached. Now, again, I understand both the reasons for my noble friend Lord Cashman and my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton why this amendment has been put forward. But as I hope to explain, it is not necessary and could prevent us from implementing section 59 in a different, more robust way.

Those bringing this amendment are aware of the provision currently set out in section 88 of the 2002 act, which displaces the duty to declare an EU asylum claim inadmissible in the event that exceptional circumstances are identified. Although section 85 sets out some examples of when an exceptional circumstance will arise currently in respect only to certain EU claims, these examples are not exhaustive or indeed rigid. Exceptional circumstances can already be applied more broadly on a case by case basis to ensure fairness and lawfulness in all EU asylum claims and well established case law already sets this out very clearly.

Now, if section 59 is commenced in its current form, updated policy guidance will be published to set out clearly how the exceptional circumstances safeguard should be applied for all claim types, taking account of the different considerations due in asylum and human rights claims. This, my Lords, will allow us to robustly and promptly process Unmeritorious asylum and human rights claims at the earliest juncture. But this is the important point that goes to my noble friend Lord Cashman's point as well.

Whenever necessary, it will also allow us to divert claims from inadmissibility action and instead consider them substantively ensuring that individual's rights under the Refugee Convention, and indeed the European Convention of Human Rights are maintained. It is not our objective to not have those rights upheld. This amendment also seeks to impose a duty for the Secretary of State to remove a country from the list at section 81 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act if that country no longer satisfies the rules in that section for being added to the list.

Now again, I say to my noble friend that the intent of this amendment is clear and commendable. It is well understood. And this goes again to the point that the noble Lord Sentamu mentioned that countries conditions may change, and they may mean that a country previously assessed as safe can no longer be regarded as such. It's for that reason, and this again goes to the power that the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel was seeking. Further clarification on. This goes to the power of section 86 B, under which regulations made to remove countries from the list can be made.

If section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced in its current form, and the list at section 81 has effect, it is unquestionable that a country assessed to be unsafe would be removed from the list by the Secretary of State under regulation in the short term, however, ahead of regulations being made in such cases, the exceptional circumstances safeguard would apply, displacing that inadmissibility duty, allowing the claim to be considered substantially and whilst again going to the point that the noble Lords have mentioned which essentially is around, the question is why are we keeping inadmissibility under section 88 of the Nationality and Immigration Act as a duty, rather than a power that was mentioned by my noble friend? Whilst the exceptional circumstance provision does admit a measure of discretion, allowing for individual risks or changes in circumstance to be taken into account, the overall duty provides for greater consistency and focus in processing such claims.

So I hope that the meeting I've had with my noble friend, the issues that he's raised, the debate that we've had today, I hope I can reassure him that the points that he has raised are valid, but are covered by the discretion and the legislation currently in place, and that in that instance, he will withdraw his amendments. he will withdraw his amendments.
16:08
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I'm particularly grateful to my hon. Friend Lord Cashman for his contribution to the debate and for his continued support in respect of these matters. The Noble and Right Reverend Lord Lord Sentamu has also repeated the the points he made earlier. And when we debated this at Committee stage in very powerfully. And I thank him for that, I thank the noble Lord Lord German on behalf of the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee and.

I would be grateful if you would wish her well in these circumstances, and thank her for her unstinting support. My Lords, the I thank also the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his personal comments. I am disappointed as he expected I would be, but not surprised. It is a contribution to the debate. I recollect at the Committee stage that although there were numerous contributions from the conservative benches, the benches behind them, not one speaker supported the the provision in section 59 of the IMA, not only today is there.

No the no speaker, there is no speaker at all in the in the, the the benches behind him from his party, even to support it. My Lords, in by their presence, if not by by their contribution to the debate. The Lords, the behind this the these amendments is not my now relaxed for many years legal brain, but advice that I got from an expert in the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. And I thank you very much for the support.

And I am, my Lords, disappointed in my noble friend. The Minister's response I have no intention, my Lords, of dividing the House on this issue, but I reserve the right to keep this issue open and to the next stage of deliberation. I asked my noble friend, who is generous with his time and support, if he would reconsider. Reflect upon, I think, is the phrase that she used the the provisions that I have put before this, this House and the implications of them and why they are a better resolution to the challenges of section 59 than with respect to those who support him.

Their view as the best way to do this. I should have thanked my noble Lord. Sorry. I should have thanked my noble friend, the Minister, for his willingness to meet with me and others to discuss this. The we. We did our level best among us to try to find a time in a very busy day last Wednesday to have that meeting. I think it probably lasted for about 3 or 4 minutes. And when I when I was out of the room, I think, I think I if I remember correctly, I was voting, but then again, I was voting on almost every minute of every day last week.

So I asked my. My noble friend if it might be possible between now and the next stage of deliberation in relation to this Bill, if we can have a meeting in a time when those who have been advising me and those who are advising him can sit in the same room for a reasonable period of time to go through the implications of the differing approaches. My Lords, I, I said, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter and therefore withdraw this amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that amendment 59 be withdrawn, amendment by leave withdrawn? That amendment by leave withdrawn? That brings us to amendment 60. The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bishop of Chelmsford. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 60 in my name, and I
16:12
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
declare my interests as per the register. I want to start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord German and the noble Baroness Lister for their support as signatories, but also for their guidance, especially as this is the First Amendment that I've sponsored to a piece of legislation. My thanks also to Baroness Lister, who in my absence rightly explained a committee that I've tabled this amendment because I'm passionate about the issues it raises, namely, how best to include not preclude those with a legal right to be here, those friends, neighbours and colleagues that we live, work and worship alongside.

The government's change to the good character guidance enacted through secondary legislation with retrospective implementation, in effect, makes the how of a person's travel to the UK a determining factor in their character assessment, not the why not the reason behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary. This is a fundamental cultural shift, and it introduces a factor which I believe bears no correlation to someone's moral character, their worth and value, or indeed the contribution that they might make to British society.

I'll try not to repeat the issues raised at committee, but the noble Lord Minister raised a number of points that do deserve our attention. And I would, of course, like to thank him for meeting with me and for engaging sincerely in his response. In committee, the Minister defended the good character test. Now, there are certainly broader concerns about its application, which I won't pursue now. But the point of this amendment isn't the good character test per se, but the addition to it of the manner of entry to this country.

I do not believe that the government has clarified why entry by irregular means is evidence of bad character, particularly when we consider the challenges faced by people fleeing conflict and persecution, which he himself has earlier acknowledged with some compassion that he could never imagine. It's important also to remember that many asylum seekers have few, if any, options to apply for asylum before making a journey, even though a territorial system of asylum will always be required. If the government provided pre-authorized travel routes, then asylum seekers could look to travel regularly and not fall foul of the recent altered guidance.

Would the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that currently this is not possible? I'd like to bring to the attention of noble Lords that since Committee stage, the amendment is now drafted to be more specific as to what the UK's obligations under international law are to protect from discrimination, refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking, women and children, the Minister said in his response at committee that citizenship should not be afforded to those who've broken the rules and entered illegally.

But I'd respectfully argue that the Refugee Convention makes clear that it is not illegal to travel to claim asylum. Hence, the state rightfully considers the merits of each claim. Why, then, should a legal act forced upon many in the most desperate of circumstances, be used as a future test of their character and prevent them from ever truly becoming a full member of British society? It's not just too high a bar, but an unattainable, and I'd suggest an immoral one.

It remains the view of many legal experts that the exclusion of refugees from citizenship on the grounds that irregular entry infringes the good character requirement, contravenes the convention. A warning issued by the UN High Commissioner on Refugees for article 31 prohibits people seeking protection from being penalised for entry, provided they present themselves to authorities without delay and show good cause for their action. We may not be able to agree on this, but perhaps the Minister could consider strengthening the guidance so that first, it makes clear that a person must not be refused citizenship on these grounds, if to do so would breach the UK's international obligations under the Refugee Convention, which is no more or less than what the noble Lord, the Minister says that is intended.

And then secondly, and importantly, that the guidance should spell out more explicitly than now that the rule should not be applied to children who entered the UK by irregular means. I welcome the fact that the government has stated that, given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child's control, most applicants would not be held accountable for immigration breaches that occurred when they were a minor. But why then, is it not possible to place this assurance on the face of the guidance? The Minister stated at committee that discretion gives flexibility, but for this matter, I'd suggest that it will only lead to ambiguity, which is not in the interests of the child.

If I may be personal for a moment, I'm very mindful and indeed thankful that I've been able to explore my vocation and serve and lead in the church and wider community. As a fully accepted member of British society. Having arrived in this country as an asylum seeker when I was 14 without British citizenship, this journey would not have been possible. Indeed, I would not be standing before noble Lords today. If citizenship is to be seen as a privilege, not a right, then surely it is a gift that we should not close off for refugees merely on the basis of how they travelled here.

And let's not forget that we're not talking about people, rather that we are talking about people who have an established and legal right to remain in this country. The guidance as it stands is needlessly unkind and will, moreover harm and work against good integration for the benefit of wider society as well. I can't help wondering what the long term impact will be of segregating refugees and British citizens in this manner, especially at a time when some seek shamelessly to exploit division and employ harmful rhetoric.

Legislators need to be careful that they don't inadvertently divide us along arbitrary lines that do not properly reflect who we are. So finally, basic discretion. Without stronger guidance and safeguards around how it should be applied, may lead to children being sanctioned, and it will needlessly segregate refugees and British citizens, in the end damaging community cohesion. Stating how discretion should be exercised does not nullify the discretionary element of the guidance. So I implore the government to commit to looking again at the guidance for what I would argue are minimal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safeguards. I therefore beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the following clause set out on a partial list. I'll speak briefly to express my
16:20
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
strong support for everything that the Right Reverend Prelate has just said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in committee, but I would like to thank my noble friend, the Minister, for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers. Might I suggest that one way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the Right Reverend Prelates request that the guidance spells out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry, if that were to contravene our international obligations, in particular under the Refugee Convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry, leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity.

Despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside of their control. Indeed, the project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I'm a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRC also my noble friend said in committee about the guidance.

Providing flexibility, and the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion. I therefore urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the Right Reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations in international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised with regard to sentencing policy, children are not mini adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when subsequently they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.

My Lords, I wish we could strike out completely this unjust. And as the Right Reverend President called it, immoral rule, which will, as we've heard, impede refugee integration. But at the very least, this amendment would erect some guardrails around the rule's implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I do hope my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the Right Reverend Prelate. My Lords, I find myself that I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I find myself that I'm persuaded by the. The, the prime, persuaded by the. The, the prime, the prelate of Chelmsford. And her arguments, I think, need to be listened to. Archbishop Robert
16:23
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
listened to. Archbishop Robert Runcie defined who a saint is. He said that a saint is a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We've all got a dark side to ourselves, and if you talk about good character, it may be at a particular person's life, but they have actually moved out of all that stuff that was hanging around them. We both carry ourselves a sainthood and sometimes some not so good characters. And that's why the definition of a saint by Archbishop Robert Runcie was quite right.

When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to start studying my theology and doing my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months I was seeing doctors in and out, in and out. Eventually they said that you must have lost a lot of blood from internal bleeding, from the blows you received at arming soldiers. I was very, very angry. Extremely angry that I should be subjected to such terrible things. And of course it was all bottled in.

But I was very, very angry. Had somebody said to me at the time, we want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen. In the interviews that have been extremely still angry. And it wasn't until one night I discovered and remembered my mother saying, John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you, they're pointing back at you and friends at Lords.

Baroness Cass this whole question of good character can be very subjective, can be very misleading, can be at the time when the person first arrived, particularly when they came as children, we all have the grace and the ability to grow out of some of our not so good bits of us, but we still remain like a very, very rough diamond. We are never unt the Gate of Death. Find it strange, this country that I've grown to love, that always has a give and take, has always got a this magnanimity of meeting people halfway through.

I'm beginning to understand, would now put good character as a ground for being accepted as a citizen. How do you know at the time you received them? And then they go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad and legislation not based on good character as a way of being allowed to be a citizen hasn't probably understood that we are on a scale of learning, a scale of growing, a scale of finding ourselves in the future and even when we die, there are lots of still stuff we have not dealt with.

May I plead that when the guidance come, particularly dealing with children, people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than harshness, which sometimes I hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgemental, more unloving, more uncaring, and the legislature should actually be the guardian against such attitudes and such behaviour. I support the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We listened to the Right Reverend prelate and her coming to
16:28
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Reverend prelate and her coming to this country as indeed to the noble Lord Lord Sentamu. Just think for a moment, the Right Reverend prelate with her parents had arrived in this country as refugees from a place where they could not go back. Well, I seem to remember the Right Reverend Prelates brother had been murdered, but had come to this country illegally. Would we really send them back as being of bad character? It's really, if one thinks about it, quite extraordinary.

Like the noble Lord Sentamu. As members of this House know, I was a judge. I spent a lot of my time hearing evidence, many from people of bad character. Bad character is, of course, a wide definition. Technically, I suppose your bad character, if you speed to that. I admit on more than one occasion. But to be of bad character, because fleeing from a place to which you had to leave because you might otherwise be dead, and coming to this country by the only means you could.

And let's bear in mind the places that people can go to, to come legally to this country are almost non-existent. Consequently, nearly every refugee to this country comes illegally. Are we to say that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, all people fleeing for good reason are to be treated as a bad character? I just ask all members of this House we really need to reflect every now and again on what comes before this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place and what we ought to do here. Well, I'll speak very briefly. I'm sorry. On her first occasion when she's tabled an amendment that I'm not able to support, the the
16:30
16:31
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
she referred in her remarks to the the way these decisions were made the way these decisions were made with children and what the noble Lords Minister the assurance he'd given before. Now, given that over given before. Now, given that over 256,000 people were granted citizenship in 2025, it seems to me that the department is not exactly overdoing the harshness of its decision making when it grants decision making when it grants citizenship on that scale, so it seems to me that there's a there's an argument here about getting the an argument here about getting the balance right.

And certainly from my experience as immigration Minister, I think it is important that Ministers who remain accountable to this House do have the discretion to be able to take the discretion to be able to take into account all of the facts. And I think if I read the amendment I think if I read the amendment correctly, this is about wanting to rule out them being able to take into account the Minister, I think, on previous occasions has made it on previous occasions has made it clear.

For example, in the case of children, that in most cases it won't become a determining factor won't become a determining factor that they came to the country illegally. But I actually want them to have the power to take it into to have the power to take it into account in the relevance of all the other facts. For example, if there were other facts about that person's conduct, this the fact they came to the country illegally might be relevant, and I might want the Minister to take it into account.

And all I'm saying is I want those decisions to be with the Minister. The more these things are prescribed in law, then the more we hand these decisions over to judges rather than those the democratically accountable. So that's all I'd say by way of balance. The final thing that I'd say is most of the debate so far has been about children. Of course, the second part of of the the amendment here talks about making it it not being able the good character test and whether someone came here illegally also ruling out adults if the details weren't set out in guidance.

And if you've come to the country illegally as an adult, I do want the government to be able to take that into account when making decisions. It should be done in the round. It should be done with all of the other factors, but I don't want it to be ruled out by statute. I want Ministers to have that. And as I said, I think the fact that over 250,000 people were granted citizenship in the last year, that the records are there, does not suggest to me that the Secretary of State and her officials are exercising these in an unduly harsh way.

So, respectfully, I think I would leave the position as it is rather than pursue this amendment. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Dannatt to speak this afternoon. But I really feel that I must in
16:33
16:35
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and I feel very, very strongly that this House should accept it. I'm not going to spend time talking about the issues which were raised at Committee stage. The fact that it's a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, and it's very costly that people may undertake. They may not use their valuable money in order to get clarity about whether they're part of an exception. The fact that we are an outlier, that I listed all the countries, 33 countries, all the big ones in Europe, we are an outlier.

Nobody else does this. And the, the, the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which is so adequately been put on the agenda by the Right Reverend prelate, I want to draw attention particularly to what happens if this government's policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey. And it may be that that's where the government wants them to stop, to be only people in this country who have indefinite right to remain.

But there are other parties, one of them sitting on my right hand side here, and one of them very small, represented in the other place, who are have a bill from their shadow Home Secretary before this Parliament, saying that people who have indeterminate right to remain, it will be removed. So at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, people who have currently and will be given the right to remain in this country, will suddenly have that stripped away according to the the bill, which is before the House of Commons.

And the danger then, of course, is this if the journey is ten years and that's what the government is proposing, it could be longer. It could be somewhat longer than that to getting citizenship anyway in this country, if that journey is ten years in length and you come as a single person and you marry somebody who is from this country and you have children and they are in school, and at the end of it all, another government might well say, thank you very much.

You're an outlier. You have to go back and would expel them from this country. Now just imagine what the consequence of this policy, if carried through, would be on the future, because we're not talking about people who've come to this country. I mean, this, this, this measure started in February of this year. We're not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate, immediate term because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it, contribute in in the ways that we've heard from two members of this House so powerfully today, it takes time to get that, and it takes time to build up that good character.

And in order to do that, you have to seek you have then to be able to seek citizenship so you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you'll be judged upon. But what the government is proposing is making that judgement right at the beginning from February, that people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees, they may be granted the right to remain. They may even be granted the indefinite right to remain.

But there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment who would then say, no, you cannot become a citizen. You. And if you've got indefinite leave to remain, then you will lose that right. And after many, many years. So I ask members of this House when they're considering this matter, to think of it in the longer term, as well as in the shorter term. There are amazing consequences for this right down the track, but we are not expecting people to just come here since February and suddenly get citizenship.

They have to prove the right to be in this country. They have to prove that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. And it doesn't take much for us to look around the world, around us in this country and see people who've just done just that. And what we are in danger of doing is splitting families, splitting husbands and wives, spouses from each other, and then and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile government in place in this country.

So think very carefully about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences of not supporting this very important amendment, which is before us today. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. My Lords, can I thank the Right Reverend Prelate for her speech.
16:40
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
And of course, we recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is, of course, controlled by the guidance issued by by the Home Office. The good character test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship, but must also be applied with common sense and humanity. However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, we cannot, I'm afraid, support it.

It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions, and we believe that decisions about who can become a British citizen should be a decision for the UK government, and applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom's ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship, while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.

Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international cooperation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interests. And for those reasons, reasons, my Lords, we cannot support the amendment in its form.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Right Reverend Prelate, Bishop of
16:41
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Chelmsford for amendment 60, and I'm particularly grateful for my say so for her having the courage to bring her personal experience to the chamber today. And I'm grateful also, if I may say so, to my noble friend Baroness Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord German, the noble Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Lady Lord Butler, lady Butler-sloss for her speaking in support of the amendment, I just want to say something, if I may, at the beginning. This is for the noble Lord German.

He's he's indicated that there may be different political parties who may, at some point in the future, have the power to change changes that he, and maybe even I would not find palatable. I just say to him that in the event of either of those political parties that he's concerned about winning an election, they can do probably what they want in both houses of Parliament anyway, and they can take forward those policies, and they probably would have won a mandate on them.

Now, I might not agree with that point, but the argument that he's making today not to make a change against the Right Reverend Prelates proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment. Rejection, then amendments. Acceptance. Sorry, then that to me doesn't seem a sensible way forward in terms of the argument, because if a government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would have been the government. Unlike me standing in this Dispatch Box, they probably would have had the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through, and they'd have the numbers in this chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion.

So I don't accept that, that, that contention. But having said that, my my concerns are different to that. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one. That goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It's considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship, and the point that the noble Lord Harper made it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy, and this amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry in the into the UK.

If the person was a child when they entered the UK. Now, apart from the fact this may encourage people to make false claims about their age in order to benefit from the provision. The amendment also seeks to ensure the consideration of good character is compliant with our UK's international obligations. Now. I'm very sorry. The noble, the Right Reverend prelate may not have had this yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which. She can have a look at later. But essentially in that letter I've said that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

And where a person has come directly from the country where they fear persecution, their protection under article 31 of the Refugee Convention means they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered. Now, I hope that partly reassures her. But again, I would just say to her, generally the decision makers are required to take into account the UK's international obligations, including the Refugee Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights. When assessing whether a person meets the good character policy.

Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case by case basis, and this includes, although it may not find favour across the whole of the house, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it's accepted, this is outside the applicant's control, and that's for the applicant to make when they make that decision. So, for example, a victim of modern slavery or a person who is trafficked or indeed going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision maker.

And I'd just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy doesn't apply to children under the age of ten on the date of application. Now, the amendment would seek also a more generous approach to migrants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. To the noble Lord, the Minister, for giving way. I just wonder on the question of children. You've the question of children. You've just said it doesn't apply, as you've said to children under ten, what the logic is for applying it what the logic is for applying it to children over ten. I'm not. I don't understand the distinction. It would be helpful. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would be helpful. Thank you. I think that's a a valid, valid question. And again, if I can just question. And again, if I can just say to the noble, the right reverend prelate that it will normally and I say normally be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it's accepted, this is outside the accepted, this is outside the applicant's control and given illegal entry is normally considered outside a child's control. Most children would not be control. Most children would not be held accountable for their immigration breach.

And certainly, as I've said before, no child under as I've said before, no child under the age of ten at the date of their application would be dealt with in that way. So I hope that gives some that way. So I hope that gives some reassurance. I think I consider that individuals seeking to become British citizens should demonstrate British citizens should demonstrate an equal regard to immigration legislation, as we expect them to show to other aspects of the law, including the criminal justice system.

We do not consider there should be an expectation that a person will benefit in the future person will benefit in the future from the policy in place when they arrived. This is consistent with the position taken in previous changes to the good character policy, such as the change in 2023 to align the criminality thresholds with the immigration rules. So I say to the Right Reverend prelate, and again, I'm grateful again for her bringing her personal experience to the chamber in this Report stage today.

But I would say to her that the Home Secretary makes the policy. The Home Secretary is accountable to this House. Decision makers have discretion, particularly for children aged 10 to 18, and no child under the age of ten would be impacted. So I hope that gives her the reassurance that the good character test is one that the noble Lord Harper mentioned, is one that is valid and is accountable to this House, but which, if changed today, would lead to confusion and potentially particularly at the borderline areas of of the older child, a contention that would cause difficulties for our purpose in life again, which is to try to stop in this bill.

Small boats illegal migrant crossings and to not provide an incentive for that. So I would hope that on the basis of that, she could, with all humility, withdraw her amendments. Yeah.
16:48
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for engaging in the debate. And I would say that all the contributions and forgive me, I'm not going to name individuals have been very heartfelt, both those for and those against the amendment. And some of them are deeply moving and enabling us, I think, to reflect even more widely than the issues specifically pertinent to this amendment. I've listened with care to the Minister's response, and I want to thank him for his thorough response.

However, regrettably, I've not received the assurances that I was hoping for that the character guidance will adequately prevent a scenario where an immigration caseworker is not having to choose whether to break international law or not, or that without further changes to the guidance, a child's right to naturalisation will be safeguarded. It's not right. I believe that discretion remains to hold a child responsible for their travel to the UK when they had no control over it, even if that's only a small possibility, as I think I've already clearly expressed dividing access to citizenship in this way.

For those who have a legal right to remain in the country, will have grievous societal and cultural consequences, however unintended. And therefore I would like with respect to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House to. Question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. This means the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. This means the opinion will say content country not content. Not content. There appears to be a
16:50
17:02
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Gower. My Lords, the. This current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the. This current group speaks to an incredibly important issue within the current asylum system. As it stands, there asylum system. As it stands, there is no standardised method for verifying the age or identity of those who enter the country illegally. These amendments seek to correct that and give the relevant authorities the power to mandate an age test, where they consider it necessary. My Lords, it cannot be right that a person is automatically assumed to be a child if their age is doubted or they lack documentary evidence.

We currently exist within a system that grants people claiming asylum an innumerable amount of privileges. Whilst their applications are processed, people are given a roof, food, electronic devices and many other amenities. Social activities are often offered. Those who need it have access to healthcare. Children are put into schools. Surely the least we should aim for is ensuring that these privileges are not oversubscribed to people who should not qualify for them. The current process does not, unfortunately, provide for this. If the authorities doubt that someone is not of the age that they claim to be, there is no lawful way to demonstratively prove the truth.

They must give the benefit of the doubt to the age disputed person. Whilst the same person can avoid taking a definitive scientific age assessment by denying consent. What is worse is that the incentives exist for people to lie and game the system. It is well documented that asylum NGOs advise that applying as a child offers a better chance of being accepted. A GB news investigation has demonstrated a spike in asylum applications across all nationalities of people claiming to be 16 or 17.

This is what happens when we offer asylum to children and don't include the necessary safeguards. The result of this system is that many adults are incentivised to masquerade as children, giving themselves a higher chance of being accepted. The state, in contrast, has no way to challenge these people. The prerequisite of consent essentially gives the age disputed person control over whether they are found to be lying. The consequences have been dire. Take lower Green Abdul Rahim Zai, a proclaimed 14 year old Afghan who had, unbeknown to the state, shot and killed two men in Serbia on his way to claim asylum in Britain.

He was placed in a secondary school, was moved to another school after being found with a knife there, injuring a pupil. Then, two years after arriving into the country, he fatally murdered aspiring marine Tom Roberts in a knife attack. Abdul Rahman MAC was actually 19 when he entered the country. My Lords, I understand that this is an extreme case, but it does highlight the importance we must give to verifying the identity of those who illegally enter the country. If someone is willing to lie at the very first hurdle, who is to say we can trust them in society afterwards? Verifying their age is the is the first step to solving this, and it prevents adults being placed in schools amongst children and highlights potentially illegitimate claims from those attempting to gain our generosity.

Amendment 63 and 64 achieve this balance. Those claiming asylum would still be given the opportunity to state their age, and wouldn't automatically be required to take an age assessment. However, the discretion would ultimately lie with the relevant authorities. If the age of a person is doubted. The powers would exist to scientifically test their age without being obstructed by consent claims. This is the bare minimum we should expect from a system that is being perpetually defrauded. Removing the requirement for consent takes the process out of the hands of the asylum seeker.

It encourages honesty and trust and distinctiveness disincentives for fraud. That is what an asylum system should aim for. So I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. In the meantime, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 48, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I rise briefly just to support my noble friend Lord Davis.
17:06
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
support my noble friend Lord Davis. And just to acquaint your lordships with the information which the government set out in July, when the Minister for Border Security and Asylum set out what the government was doing on some of the technology in this place, we discussed a previous group of amendments, the potential for artificial intelligence and its facial recognition technology to make a big change in this area. When I argued that we should leave open that opportunity, the Minister, in her statement earlier this year confirmed that that testing was underway, and she said that subject to the results of further testing and assurance, facial age estimation could be fully integrated into the current age assessment system over the course of 2026.

So I don't think the government's current position is that far away from that set out by my noble friend in terms of setting out regulations. The one other point I wanted to make, which is potentially a big advantage of this technology, is I do understand on on previous scientific or medical tests that were available. Partly they weren't particularly accurate, but also they were either medical in nature or more invasive, involving MRI scans or X-rays, for example. And there are some legitimate reasons why you wouldn't want somebody to force to be to undergo that sort of procedure.

And their refusal to undertake such might not be held to be unreasonable. I think with artificial intelligence and facial recognition, there seems to be a very weak case, if any at all, to refuse to undergo such a test. So I hope that, subject to the testing being in order, I hope that if the government does bring it in, it really won't give people the opportunity to refuse to undergo it. I see very I see no legitimate case to do that. And if the testing is accurate and gives Ministers accurate information about somebody's age, then I hope they will make it mandatory and give decision makers and Ministers the ability that if someone refuses to take it, then the presumption of them being a child can be overturned and that they suffer a consequence for not using that technology.

So I hope in his response, the Minister can give us perhaps a little of an update on how that testing is going and whether that time frame that the Minister set out earlier this year that hoping this technology would be able to be rolled out next year, whether that's still on track and I'm very strongly support my noble friend's two amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope that. My Lords, I feel as if we've been round this one a fair number been round this one a fair number of times, and I'm very much looking forward to the noble Lord, the Minister, saying what he can about Minister, saying what he can about the AI facial recognition technology. But I do want to remind technology. But I do want to remind everybody that the Home Office's own age Estimation Scientific Advisory Council has made it very clear that no method, biological or clear that no method, biological or social worker led can determine age with precision.

And we really need to be very clear about that. to be very clear about that. Biological evidence can only test whether a claimed age is possible, whether a claimed age is possible, not set a hard cover or a not set a hard under or over 18 line. And I
17:10
17:11
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
don't think anybody would suggest that I am a an extremist on this, but it does seem to me this is a very sensible amendment because it's very carefully written, and I hope the Minister will take it very, very seriously. And the reason is this if we are going to get through this very difficult period, we do have to face those things which the public in general find most difficult. And we've already had this discussion before about the fact that the public find it very difficult to accept that we don't deport people who have committed crimes in this country.

The second thing they find very difficult to accept is when people appear to get away with pretending to be children when they're not, and all this amendment does, it seems to me, is to ask the government to take this seriously and to produce within a reasonable period of time, the advice that they're going to give on this. Now, I find it awfully difficult to understand why one could possibly vote against that. And I listened carefully to Baroness Neuberger, but it doesn't actually refer to the insistence that we would use some invasive system.

What it asks for is that the government produce a statement very clearly as to what may properly be used that I find perfectly acceptable. If we were talking about the details, then that would be a different issue. I'm not sure I would agree with Baroness Neuberger, but that's not the issue. The issue here is a different one, and I do hope the house right across whatever view one holds generally will right across the house will recognise that we have a responsibility to try to meet those those points where the public are particularly concerned, because if we don't, then those on the far right, those who have no understanding about what it must be like to be an asylum seeker, those who don't have any care for those people will have another opportunity to lead people astray.

So I just very much hope that the Minister will take this particular amendment very seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much deprecate people who come to this country and commit crimes, and the sooner they're crimes, and the sooner they're deported, the better. I, however, don't really understand why we need don't really understand why we need these amendments. I'm hoping that the noble Lord, the Minister, is
17:14
17:15
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
number of bills over the last 4 to 5 years, and it keeps returning because there are concerns. And I just want to start by trying to, as we did last week, find some common ground with Lord Harper in particular about the issues where we agree age verification to say someone is or isn't 18 is extremely difficult. It is completely inappropriate. As Lord Davis said, if people are well over 18, come into a school system where they are treated as much younger, and even from these benches, you know, we would not support that.

The difficulty comes and the reason we keep raising this is, first of all, it is absolutely clear that no doctor will apply any of the scientific methods. We've had this debate since 2023, when the BMA made it clear it was unreliable. Lord Winston spoke in your Lordships' House on that occasion and talked about hormonal change because of poor diet, about the possibility of hormonal change, because of minor tumours, benign tumours. All of those things are absolutely impossible to tell just from looking at an MRI.

And I think the amendment 63 asks the government to set out scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments, but I am reminded that actually we already have regulations in place to do that under the previous government. If it if it needs to be done again, I would like evidence to show that the situation has changed and that doctors now say it is safe to do it. If doctors say it is not safe, we should not be doing it.

I want to raise a particular point on amendment 64 and the powers to make provision about refusal to consent again, time and time again, we've said actually somebody under 18 and we don't always know whether they are or not, cannot give informed consent. And the UN rights of the child make it very, very clear that that should be taken into account by a state in 2023. The then Minister, I think it was Lord Sharpe from memory, told your Lordships' House that the Netherlands did use age assessment, but he failed to mention that in the Netherlands anyone being investigated as to whether they are 18 or under has access to free legal advice, who will support them through that age assessment to ensure that their rights as a child are not contravened.

This still does not happen here in the United Kingdom, which means that if the government has the right to make a decision and speed up a process, if a person does not give consent for that examination, they have no protection at all under the law. And that is something that worries certainly us from these benches considerably. So I do hope that with that in mind, and the fact that we don't seem to progress the scientific evidence that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I'm grateful to the noble Lords for tabling the amendment, and we
17:18
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
for tabling the amendment, and we have indeed been round the houses. But in a in a sense of trying to reach some common ground. Can I say that I agree with, I think every honourable noble Lord who has spoken in that we do need to have some method of assessing age, because children who are placed in settings with adults are at risk, and adults who are placed in settings with children potentially possess a risk. So I think there's a common ground there that we need to find some mechanism to establish age verification as a whole, and that is common ground across the Report stage of this House today.

The amendments, however, amendment 63 and 64 refer to scientific methods of age assessment, and amendment 63 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act within six months of the passing of this Bill. However, and this is really the one of the reasons that I, as well as the ones I've given that I support the speech of the noble and learned Lady Butler-sloss regulations are already made under this power, which specify x ray and MRI methods of age assessment, and amendment 64 would affect introduce reintroduce section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which this bill looks to repeal, and the methods that have been agreed in the case of the Secretary of State under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that this amendment seeks to achieve unless and until specific scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR and the specified methods, that is to say, x ray and MRI images of certain body areas do not currently meet this threshold.

That's the point. I think that the noble Baroness Neuberger also emphasised, and to some extent the noble Lord Harper. Now, that doesn't mean, again, that the government doesn't wish to have age verification measures in place. And I can assure the House that in the context of the government's wider work to reform age assessment system, as was mentioned by the noble Lord Harper, the then Minister for Security and Asylum, set out in a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons, which I repeated in this House in July, that this government has commissioned work to determine the most promising new and emerging methods of age assessment to pursue them further.

And as a result of that, currently, the work to operationalise x ray and MRI methods of age assessment have been stood down because facial age estimation, and this goes again to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, are less intrusive, they're cheaper, they're faster, and there's no requirement for a physical medical procedure. Now, we're not there yet. My Lords, and I mentioned this in the Committee stage. We're not there yet, but facial age estimation technology is currently being explored by the Home Office.

It is a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process and with further testing and with further trialling, we have commissioned further work with the intention of implementing the technology during 2026, if it proves worthwhile additions to the armoury that we have, and given that focus to emerging new methods. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to him. The last government produced an expert report in the run up to the 23 report in the run up to the 23 various debates and amendments that we had, will the government undertake to have both an expert report from doctors and scientists, which would then be published in which would then be published in full, so that Parliament and the wider community can actually see the detail? Because he's absolutely the detail? Because he's absolutely right. AI age assessment is not there yet, and it's always worrying about passing something that might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about passing something that might mean that we don't see the detail when doctors are unhappy. I would say to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Brinton that it is in the interests of government to get technology in place that is less technology in place that is less intrusive, which is more accurate, and which does not rely on, as and which does not rely on, as we've got now, X-rays and MRIs for that physical contact. So the question of what that development will be is something that we're working through at the moment. And I'm expecting that in the latter part of 2026, I'll be able to come to this house, if still in post, to argue the case for the implementation of a better facial age estimation technology.

And I will, on the basis of what the noble Lady has said, make sure that I can put into the public domain whatever information I think I can put into the public domain. That doesn't, again, compromise the operation in the first place. That's the best I can give her today. But I will reflect on what she said and look at whether I can agree to her request. But I don't want to to do that. As with an immediate response, because there may be reasons why it's not in the interest to put some of that information into the public domain, because people, again, will always try to subsume facial recognition technology or any other method.

So I just want to reflect on that, if I may. But the key point today is that these emerging new methods and the fact that regulations, applying the automatic assumption of adult provision for refusal to consent to methods of scientific age assessment as set out in the IMA, cannot be laid until the specific methods are sufficiently accurate. And because we don't believe they're going to be, these amendments are not necessary. And for those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, again, we can share common ground, his objective and my objective.

And I think of every noble member of this House that has spoken, is to ensure that we have accurate age assessment, the methodology he's brought forward with these amendments is not the way forward, but I give the assurance to the House that the exploration of other methods is underway, and I will report back when those tests are complete. I urge him, therefore, to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment. This has been a short but important debate, and I'm grateful
17:25
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
important debate, and I'm grateful for those noble Lords that have contributed. As I referenced in my opening remarks, there is a there is clear evidence of adults pretending to be children in order to gain refugee status in the United Kingdom. As boat crossings rise, so does the number of fraudulent asylum claims. This means a high number of unchecked people who should not be here and perhaps more importantly, a high number of adults in children's schools. This is a crisis that the government can and must face head on, ensuring the people are the age that they claim to be is just one step that must take to end this crisis.

But it is an important step, and amendment 63 and 64 offer a framework of how it may be done. Amendment 64 provides a fair and balanced approach to age assessments. It does not provide the state with overreaching powers to assess anyone who enters the country, but also does not retreat to the position where the age disputed person is given the right to deny any form of comprehensive assessment, it gives the relevant authorities the discretion to enforce a scientific test where there are no reasonable grounds to not consent to one.

This measure would allow for a fairer immigration system that incentivise honesty, rather than one that rewards fraud. However, if we are to take away the right to consent when there are no reasonable grounds, then it is just that we also specify which methods may be used to assess age. As I said, assessing age has become a necessary measure in certain cases, which is why amendment 64 is so important. But amendment 63 is just as important as it would allow the Secretary of State to lay out a clear and comprehensive list of scientific methods that may be used to achieve this end the current system in place incentivises dishonesty and puts children across the country at risk.

As a result, these amendments provide a comprehensive framework that goes a long way to resolving that problem, and I hope the noble Lord the Minister, considers taking them on board. I have heard what he has said about finding common ground for age assessment. So for now, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to leave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 64. Lord Davis not moved. Amendment 63 Lord Davis. Lord Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Davis. 60. Yes 65. My Lords in 2013, 20,587 people travelled illegally 20,587 people travelled illegally by boat to Australia. The Australian government instituted Operation Sovereign Borders, Operation Sovereign Borders, whereby illegal migrants entering by boat are either turned back to their point of departure, returned to their home country or transferred to a third country. Australia established an asylum Australia established an asylum processing centre in Nauru for this purpose. None of them were allowed to stay in Australia. The year to stay in Australia.

The year after this policy was introduced, the number of small boats arrivals the number of small boats arrivals fell to 450. They went from 20,587 fell to 450. They went from 20,587 to 450. That, my Lords, is how you successfully protect your borders. That is how you prevent illegal migration and people smuggling. Not by handling handing illegal migrants hotel accommodation, giving them money and then permitting them to make all manner of spurious asylum protection and modern slavery claims. It has been tried and tested before it can be done.

And yet there are political parties in this country and we have them here in this chamber, the government, the Liberal Democrats being two who still refuse to support such action, that has been proven to work. My Lords, this government's policies on border security, illegal migration, asylum have so far failed. My amendment 65 and 77 give the government the opportunity to finally get a grip and follow the positive example of Australia. They are intended to work in tandem with each other to permit the government to refuse asylum claims from illegal migrants and remove them to a third country.

Processing centres. Amendment 65 places a duty on the Secretary of State to refuse, without consideration any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who has entered the country illegally. My noble friend Baroness Maclean of Redditch amendment 65 includes modern slavery claims within that list, and I would also support that inclusion. The amendment also includes any person who has not come directly from a country where their life or liberty were threatened within the meaning of the refugee Convention. My noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has spoken in detail about that during committee, and I again echo his arguments.

Subsection four. This amendment includes a crucial safeguard where a person has entered the UK legally, but whilst they have been in the UK, their home country has become unsafe and they subsequently make an asylum or protection claim, then their claim would be able to be considered in the usual manner. This ban on asylum claims from illegal migrants would absolutely act as a deterrent for illegal migration. People will not make the journey across the channel if they know their claims will be automatically refused, and they will be swiftly deported.

Amendment 77 follows on from this and requires the Home Secretary to establish third country removal centres, where we would be able to send those who cannot be returned to their home country. Australia has done this with Nauru and United States has done this with Uganda, Honduras and Rwanda. The government has claimed the previous government's policy of sending illegal migrants to Rwanda was unworkable. And yet the United States has done precisely that, and it has worked. Illegal crossings across the US southern border have fallen by 89% in one year.

Australia and the United States prove that illegal migration can be stopped. And yet we are constantly told that we cannot do the same in this country. That, our Lords is false. We can replicate this success. All it requires is a recognition of the concerns of the British electorate, and a desire to genuinely end illegal entry to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list and now amendment 65 as an A, 65 as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now amendment 65 as an A, 65 as an amendment to 65 Baroness Maclean. I would like to add my support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to add my support to the amendments in this group and also speak briefly about mine. These amendments would strengthen These amendments would strengthen the amendments laid by my noble friends on the front bench, which I strongly support, and they have the
17:31
17:33
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in subsection one after protection claim, insert modern slavery claim.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Davis, and particularly to focus on amendment particularly to focus on amendment one, part of amendment 65, which is the part two B about whether making it clear that someone has to come if they come, if they don't come directly to the UK from a country which they were threatened, they're not covered by the Refugee Convention. Now, I strongly support that. We've had that debate earlier in debates on this bill, and it may or may not surprise you, Lordships, to know that it's also the view of the government in a letter that the the noble Lord Lord Katz sent to Baroness Chakrabarti following up the debate we had in committee on Monday the 13th of October, which was responding to suggestions that she had made in response to her amendments, that he said in the letter that he sent, he said the convention that is the refugee convention is quite clear about the need for migrants to come directly to benefit from the protections it affords them, he said.

In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the convention and are entirely safe. Countries with functioning asylum systems, of which migrants are able to avail themselves. Well, my Lords, I couldn't agree with the Minister more about that interpretation of the Refugee Convention, which is effectively what my noble friend has set out in his amendment.

So, given that that is the government's view that the interpretation of article 31 of the Refugee Convention should be read narrowly in that sense, then I hope, firstly, that the noble Lord, the Minister, when he responds, will be able to support my noble friend's amendments. But even if he finds something in the drafting of my noble friend's amendments, that is, that he feels isn't absolutely spot on, that he can nonetheless, given that view that he set out in his letter, come forward at Third Reading with an amendment which would correct the drafting, but which would put into statute the sentiments that he set out in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

letter that he sent, with which I entirely agree. Yeah. It's all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's all. Very well saying that those people who have come from a safe third country are not entitled to third country are not entitled to asylum here. That is the law, there's no doubt about that. The
17:35
17:36
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, that's. strongly. But I'd also like to say that my interpretation of Lord Harper's interpretation of the letter, I prefer to rely on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 31, which I'm sure Lord Katz is going to refer to later as being the defence against the offence that he has allegedly conducted during his. In his letter. Just simply, these amendments target assignment modern slavery claims made by those who have entered the UK irregularly and they risk combining injustice, compounding injustice and playing directly into the hands of the very criminals we seek to defeat.

Firstly, focusing on restricting access to modern slavery protections for individuals, particularly those identified as illegal entrants, risks undermining the UK's reputation and compliance with our international obligations, notably, the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking. We must remember that victims of trafficking are frequently coerced into criminal activity and extending disqualification criteria or imposing restrictions disproportionately affects genuine survivors of modern slavery. Secondly, if these amendments aim to limit the judicial scrutiny of claims made by irregular arrivals seeking protection, they threaten the balance of fairness that underpins our legal system.

Any such attempt introduces legal uncertainty and risks violating individual human rights, asylum legislation and decision making must prioritise the principles of compliance with human rights obligation. We resist the temptation to craft legislation based on a political narrative that disregards the plight of those fleeing persecution and violence. We must focus finite resources on those who truly need our help. The victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. For these reasons, based on principles of compassion, international compliance, and operational effectiveness against criminal amendments.
17:39
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taken together, amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lord, Lords de Lords Lord Davis and Lords de Lords Lord Davis and Cameron, and further amended by Baroness McLean of Redditch by amendment 65 and 77. A can be seen amendment 65 and 77. A can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, as well as the Rwanda Plan. And indeed, again, as was the case with again, as was the case with amendments discussed on day two of report, these proposals at points take a more work unworkable take a more work unworkable approach than what has come before.

As I he doesn't mind me praying him in a Lord Pannick argued in his in a Lord Pannick argued in his short but focussed contribution. It's Lord. Lord Davis, in his It's Lord. Lord Davis, in his speech said that our policies have failed, and I would simply point out to him that whereas 400 asylum out to him that whereas 400 asylum seeker hotels, as he mentioned, hotels were in use under the previous government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament.

And indeed we have Parliament. And indeed we have removed more than five, seen more than 5000 foreign national offenders deported over the last offenders deported over the last year, and that's a 14% increase on the last 12 months before. So if the last 12 months before. So if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Davis and his colleagues on on his bench see as failure, it is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum immigration failed so much itself.

My Lords, I emphasise, emphasise again that this government has been clear on its approach to the Legal Migration Act and the policy intentions of this act. This bill repeals it. Aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention and this bill as promised in our in our manifesto, fully repeals the the Safety of Rwanda Act 2020 for a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million, which saw only four people leave the country and they all left voluntarily.

My Lords, Amendment 65 effectively seeks to reinstate in a different form of sections two and five of the Illegal Migration Act. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk. And regardless of the nature of the that person's claim, amendment 65 from Baroness Maclean of Redditch would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim slavery claim on the same basis.

This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children. Turning to amendment 77 and the amendment to that amendment, amendment 77 to 70 7AI thank the noble Lords and Baroness McLean for their interest in the government's approach to third country removal centres. However, I must respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on the 15th of May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what's workable.

These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers, who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await re documentation by their country of origin. Taking this amendment 77, together with amendment 35, which was discussed on day two of the report, the effect would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined, and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country.

The returns hub proposal, my Lords, is fundamentally different. It does not outsource asylum decision making, but instead targets those who claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and indeed found wanting. We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right.

I therefore urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendment on the basis that it only not only duplicates work already in train, but also constricts that work and mitigates against the government's aim to include a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties. My Lords, these amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK's immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the Refugee Convention, the ECHR and indeed the anti-trafficking convention there, would only serve to prevent asylum decision making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome, and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation with significant costs to taxpayers we cannot ignore.

Also, my Lords, the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including victims of modern slavery and children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, Cameron Cameron and Baroness McLean to withdraw their amendments.
17:44
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
To speak to your.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Withdraw my amendment, my Lords. Mr. president, amendment 65 AB

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. president, amendment 65 AB withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. And now we return

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to amendment 65. My Lords, the government has, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government has, of course, decided to abandon the conservative policy of removal to a third country for which we had an agreement. And we, of course, would urge the government to retain the Rwanda agreement. As I detailed earlier, the Australian model was a great success. But, my Lords, this great success. But, my Lords, this week we've seen, of course, the second migrant deported in the one in, one in, one out scheme returned in, one in, one out scheme returned to the UK.

We've also heard this week that the government will be handing asylum seekers £100 a week handing asylum seekers £100 a week to move out of hotels and move in with family and friends they may have in the UK. These measures will have in the UK. These measures will not deter illegal migration. Channel crossings have continued at an even faster rate, but it does an even faster rate, but it does not have to be this way. We leave the asylum protection, human rights the asylum protection, human rights and modern slavery crimes and deport all illegal migrants within a week and establish third country a week and establish third country removal centres.

We can replicate Australia's success. The government's policies do not carry the support of the British people. My Lords, on this issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 65. And amendment 65 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as of that opinion will say content. Content and to the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House
17:45
17:57
17:57
18:08
18:08
18:19
18:19
None Portrait Division
-

Question is that this amendment be agreed to as many as that opinion content, not content. No question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House when the voting is open. Voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is the The question is the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the question is that this amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion shall say, content, not content contents will go to the right by the bar. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you, Thank you, thank Thank you, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this amendment be agreed to. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 193,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 193, not contents 236. Therefore, The not contents 236. Therefore, The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not contents have it. Amendment not contents have it. Amendment 73 Lord German. Amendment sets up processing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment sets up processing centres to be able to clear the backlog and remove the need for asylum hotels. I wish to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. The question is that this amendment be agreed to, as many of amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion shall say, content, content, content. Content question will be decided by a division. I will be decided by a division. I will inform the House when voting will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. Sorry. amendment be agreed to. Sorry. Question. Sorry. Oh sorry. Question is that this amendment be agreed to as many as that content contrary not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Jones Lord Jones. Thank Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I Thank you. I know. That. That. This. That. This. Is That. This. Is a That. This. Is a thing. That. This. Is a thing. That That. This. Is a thing. That I'm going to do once.

I have a very Okay, Okay, so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question Question is Question is that Question is that this Question is that this amendment That That have That have voted content 68, not contents 169. Therefore the not contents habit. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 74 after clause 48, amendment 74 Baroness Chakrabarti.
18:42
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 74. In my name. Noble Lords will recall that in committee I proposed replacing section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, 1999, because it is incomplete. That section attempts to comply with article 31 of the Refugee Convention by providing statutory defences for refugees who have irregularly entered or are present in the UK, but who have come directly from a country persecuting them. They presented themselves to the authorities without delay and shown good cause for their unlawful entry or presence.

However, as described by our Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on this bill, the statutory defence, I quote, is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention. Strangely, my Lords, the defence is only available to refugees who have used false documents. It does not extend to refugees who arrive, enter or are present here irregularly with no documents at all. It is unclear to me, my Lords, why our country would privilege the refugee arriving by plane on a false passport over the stateless person or refugee with no passport or visa.

Refugees are often compelled to flee with nothing but the clothes on their back. What little they have may be stolen or lost along the way. I raised this anomaly, my Lords, during committee and my noble friend, I'm glad to say my noble friend Lord Katz understood what he called this specific inconsistency, very kindly agreeing to write to me on the point that was the 13th of October at volume 849 and column 113 of Hansard, as my noble friend helped explain to the committee, the defence is also imperfect and incomplete because it fails to protect from prosecution.

The refugee who in fleeing persecution, stops in another safe country. Also, column 113 my Lord, sadly, those who drafted my noble friend's letter to me of the 24th of October demonstrated neither his logic and compassion, nor, frankly, any acknowledgement of what he actually said at the despatch box. Indeed, the letter would be more fitting in support of opposition amendments proposed by, for example, the noble Lord Lord Murray of Blidworth and rejected by the government. And my noble friend that day, in recognition of refugees who transit countries en route to the United Kingdom, I quote from the letter, this is the Home Office letter.

The convention is quite clear about the need for migrants to come directly to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the convention and are entirely safe. Countries with functioning asylum systems, of which migrants are able to avail themselves. It's as if last year's general election never happened.

Therefore, almost all who arrive in the UK, even if eventually found by the authorities, by the Home Office or the appeal system to be refugees, have no statutory defence to protect them from criminalisation and prosecution. My Lords, that is contrary to a good faith interpretation of the Refugee Convention. The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, the guardian of the Refugee Convention, recently issued guidelines on article 31. These make clear that just because a refugee has transited an intermediate country, that does not mean they have not come directly from their country of persecution.

Rather, my Lords, the directness of their travel needs to be assessed against the realities and context of journeys which often require circuitous, delayed and interrupted travel over land and sea. Lord Dear, the late noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton under Heywood and Lord Bingham of Cornhill, helped establish this purposive interpretation of our common law. My amendment 74 simply restores that position. The reality of today's world means a refugee may need to transit an intermediate country.

Even before my own days as a home office lawyer, we had carriers liability. The impact of this is that commercial carriers fear financial penalties. Airlines do not allow refugees to board safe planes directly from their country of persecution. If they did, refugees would not risk perilous journeys across the Mediterranean, the continent or the channel. Smugglers are far more expensive than aeroplane tickets. If noble Lords cast their minds back three years to the prior borders Bill, they will recall that the roots of criminalising the act of arriving to seek asylum began their.

I would remind my noble friends and government that in opposition, we rejected that bill in its entirety. At Second Reading. My noble friend now the Minister Lord Coaker, called it wrong and unethical. That was the 27th of April, 2022 at column 306. Labour in opposition, supported every one of the Lords amendments, and noble Lords defeated the then government 19 times, seeking to mitigate the worst excesses of that bill. That bill, which sought to reinterpret and chip away at the Refugee Convention.

It criminalised the act of arriving as a refugee. Since then, my Lords, 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted. The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and or torture. When noble Lords decided against sending the Nationality and Borders Bill back to the other place for a fourth time, we were promised the battle, and the campaign for a proper refugee system will carry on again.

April 2022. And my noble friend, the Lord Coaker amendment 74 is my attempt to carry on that campaign by making the most technical and legal of changes to ensure compliance with the Refugee Convention, and to restore the common law position. It rids us of the false notion that a refugee who merely stops in another country can be punished and penalised. However, it retains the requirement that a refugee must come directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened, and the term come directly must be interpreted in line with our common law tradition.

It adds irregular entry and arrival to the list of offences for which refugees may have a statutory defence and not be criminalised for arriving in search of sanctuary. For those who are not refugees, the offence is untouched. It repeals section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, with its poor faith interpretation of the convention. Apart from anything else, my Lords, is it really a good use of the criminal justice system on its knees to be prosecuting recognised refugees, even recognised refugees prosecuting them for illegal entry? This borders Bill and this government might finally put clear blue water between a fair asylum system and the failed performative cruelties of the recent past.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the new clause as on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

master list. So I don't know whether the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I don't know whether the the opposition wants to come in on this, but I might as well jump in. I wish but I might as well jump in. I wish to support noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti on her amendment, which
18:51
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Chakrabarti on her amendment, which is. I think, you know, simplified from her amendment at Committee stage. And she's she's quite right that this government ought to wish to stick to article 31 of the Refugee Convention. That is what it maintained over the last few years. And it would be sensible and right to come back to that position. As the noble Lady said, we can rely on the common law position, which I think was.

Contributed to by the late noble Lord Brown of Eaton under Heywood, and rely on the courts to understand what directly means it it it can sometimes include a short stops in transit. I think we all understand why that might might be, but it's a question of assessment in any individual situation. So I think it's important to go back to the refugee Convention definition and understanding for reasons of fairness and justice. But I also and in fact, Baroness Chakrabarti in her closing part of her remarks, picked up on something that I was keen to to to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, and she Baroness Chakrabarti repeated the statistics that she gave to us at Committee stage that 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival, and 455 convicted, and the vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum.

And I think in her remarks just now, she added that a lot of these people prosecuted actually had refugee status. So I do wonder what is the point, particularly in the light of all the demands that we've heard about? In fact, yesterday, I think, in this House, about the all the pressures on the criminal justice system, it can't cope. What is the point of adding new pressure to it? And surely the important thing is to get on with assessing someone's claim so that you can decide whether they have a valid refugee or other humanitarian claim and be allowed to stay, or they don't, in which case they they ought to be deported.

What is the point of wasting time, resources, energy. And putting people who might well get refugee status through that process when you're going to grant them refugee status anyway? I mean, what is the point of the diversion? I've never understood this, to be perfectly honest, and I think what Baroness Chakrabarti is offering is a way to get back to a sensible position. Of course, you know people who are guilty of smuggling and trafficking offences might still get get caught by this, but it it it is a baroque sort of arrangement that we have at the moment.

And we need to a cleave to the refugee convention, which has been the traditional position of the Labour Party in opposition and ought to be in government, and secondly, not waste resources and time and everything else in prosecuting people, instead of just getting on with the asylum determination and then removing those who have no claim, it does. Present situation doesn't make any sense, either in justice or in practicality. And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can give a positive response to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady's amendment. My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, carefully to the noble Baroness, who's long and well known experience in these matters. I greatly respect, and I have sympathy for the underlying principle of her amendments. But I do fear that her amendment, though well intentioned, would take us back to the position that, in our view, Parliament quite rightly sought to clarify in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, in section 37 of that act was in section 37 of that act was introduced for a very clear reason to ensure that the UK, while complying with its obligations complying with its obligations under the Refugee Convention, could define in domestic law how those obligations should be interpreted and applied.

This amendment would and applied. This amendment would lead to both the repealing of section 37 and expansion of the section 37 and expansion of the statutory defence and, in our view, would go far beyond what the Refugee Convention requires. Refugee Convention requires. Article 31 exists to protect those who come directly from danger and present themselves without delay. present themselves without delay. It does not exist to provide a blanket immunity for all irregular
18:57
18:58
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
requirement that asylum seekers must come directly to the UK to benefit the from the defence provided by article 31 of the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, it seeks to expand the list of specific offences set out in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which asylum seekers who arrive legally have a statutory defence against. I wish to thank my noble friend for her amendment, also noting the previous amendment she has suggested during the passage of this bill and indeed thank her for her kind words about my response to the debate that her previous amendments at Committee stage made these government remain.

The government remains committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Indeed, all of our asylum related legislation, rules and guidance will continue to be fully compliant with all of our international obligations, and I hope that provides a level of assurance if and for the avoidance of any doubt, all claims which are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on the individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against a background of published country information.

The government considers that those fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country in which it's reasonable to do so. This is in the asylum seekers best interests and also serves to reduce the risk inherent to inherent, to making further dangerous attempts to reach the UK illegally and prevents further profit going to criminal people and those who organise the the the terrible criminal offences which this bill is designed to to stop providing a statutory defence to illegal arrival and illegal entry, would effectively, my Lords, provide a defence to virtually all individuals who reach the UK by legal means, and it's difficult to see how this could be seen to support the government's stance on enforcing the law on illegal migration, and again, would only undermine the confidence of UK citizens in maintaining our wish to maintain a fair and safe immigration system.

Both my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti indeed, the noble Baroness Baroness Ludford raised the question of recognised refugees being persecuted for prosecuted for illegal entry. So I'll spend a little bit of time explaining the grounds and where the when, what happens when considering whether or not to make an arrest in that case, immigration enforcement, criminal and financial investigations. Investigators must consider whether or not the suspect is likely to benefit from the statutory defence within section 31. They must consider the defence as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as the published CPS guidance on statutory defences, and if it is deemed that the individual would benefit from the defence, they are not to make an arrest.

If evidence suggests that a prosecution would be possible, then continuous liaison between investigators and the relevant asylum caseworker must be undertaken throughout the asylum claim process. A decision about whether a section 31 defence applies must not be made without discussing and agreeing the decision with the supervising officer at chief immigration officer level, or above all, details of the subsequent assessment and decision making process must be recorded on the case management system. When referring a case to the CPS or devolved equivalent.

In the event that a prosecution is deemed to be appropriate, the investigators must pass on all relevant information about the suspect's personal status and circumstance, including age, any physical or mental health conditions, as well as their status in the UK. The CPS must also be updated on any progress in the asylum process. This is all to say that the decisions to pursue prosecutions in cases where there is an active asylum claim are not taken lightly, and that there is a process to give some assurance that there is a process in place to ensure that those who stand to benefit from the defence in section 31 are not prevented from doing so.

I hope that detail provides some extra level of assurance to my noble friend. Er Baroness Chakrabarti and to Lord Low Lordships' House. To underline, the government remains committed to the protection of refugees and to its obligations under the Refugee Convention, 1951. And given that, my Lords, I would invite my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to to all noble Lords for even being in the chamber, let alone for
19:02
19:04
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Moulsecoomb I rise to move amendment. 75, which would insert a new clause after clause 48 to place a clause after clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers and the Immigration and Asylum tribunals. This is supported by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Detainees. The purpose. Of this amendment is to ensure that in the exercise of immigration that in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safeguard to ensure that decisions affecting people's lives decisions affecting people's lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences. My Lords. Subsection one of the proposed new clause sets out that core duty that every relevant authority in carrying out its functions must have due regard to the need to promote family unity.

And subsection two then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. Now, these principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, every teacher, every social worker knows that children with the love, stability and presence of their stability and presence of their families can thrive. This clause would complement the existing duty would complement the existing duty under section 55 of the borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children, and subsection three makes that explicit.

The new duty makes that explicit. The new duty sits alongside section 55 and is subject to it. Ensuring the welfare of a child remains paramount and equally important. Subsection four provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse, leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK.

It simply creates a duty of consideration a framework for fairer, more humane decision making. And this amendment would not diminish the government's ability. To control immigration. It would simply require that when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision makers take proper account of family unity and the children's rights to grow up in the care of their families by including the first tier and upper tribunals within the scope of this duty. We also ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the home office desk to the final appeal.

It gives tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human rights decisions. They are central to them. My Lords, the UK has long recognised, through international commitments and domestic law, that the family is the fundamental unit of society, and this amendment gives practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN convention on the rights of the child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life.

And it does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child's welfare and the proper limits of executive power. I hope the Minister will see that this amendment strengthens, rather than weakens, the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and humanity. I beg to move. Proposed after clause 48. Insert
19:07
19:08
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones for amendment 75, which, as she has outlined, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. I think it's an important point the noble Lady has raised, but I'll just say that the amendment is unnecessary, and I'll try and explain for her the reasons why the protections it seeks, which are important protections, are already firmly embedded in the legislative frameworks and policies, such as section 55 of the Board of Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act of 1998.

The Public Sector Equality Duty, also derived from the Equality Act of 2010 and as announced in the Immigration White Paper in May, we're exploring further reforms to the family route. There is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children, and she did mention this section 55 of the borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2009 that places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged.

Having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK, and Every Child Matters is set out in our statutory guidance. The immigration rules also balance the right to family and private life under article eight, the right to respect for private and family life of the European Convention on Human Rights and Family Life can also, as under part five of the Nationality and Immigration Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life.

Under that article eight, it requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the eligibility requirements, the decision maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of article eight, and this involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or indeed their family. And under section 109 of the Equality Act I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have, due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations.

Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. And article eight, as we will discuss claims, will only succeed if the deportations impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The Immigration White Paper that has already been announced, plans announced already and confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under article eight, but not in other circumstances. So for those reasons, I say to the noble Baroness that I would respectfully invite her to withdraw the amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear so often in this chamber that the amendments that the opposition has brought are completely unnecessary. It's already in the law. We don't have to worry our pretty little heads
19:11
19:12
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 78 bill Cameron. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 78, which is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community. Notwithstanding any agreement the government may make with Mauritius, this is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments that have been made in this House and in the other place in regards to the Diego Garcia military base Bill. But I do would like to thank the government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that bill until the new year, following a calls from these benches for additional time for further scrutiny.

We fundamentally disagree with the government's agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen. This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status that they deserve, and I urge the government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

48. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. Lords, we support this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, we support this amendment because it protects the rights of Chagossians because after the Chagossians because after the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas
19:14
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territories, will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any. Chagossian who has claimed Botc BIOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry comes into force.

If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territory citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territories, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until entry into force of the treaty. And that is the issue I think that we need explanation of is that protection of rights end when the treaty comes into force. And I would remind the House that the the International Agreements Committee, of which I'm a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers, and they summarily total the evidence that was received.

State this. We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement, and in that knowledge, it's therefore very important that we secure the rights of Chagossians, not just resettlement in Chagos itself, in the islands themselves, but also their the protected for their for the status which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom has given them. My Lords, amendment 78 aims to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 78 aims to prevent changes to the UK immigration status held by Chagossians and their descendants, Chagossians and their descendants, regardless of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, or any change in the
19:16
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
and Mauritius, or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean territories under UK law. As no Lord Gove noted, Chagossians and their descendants are either automatically British British citizens or have a right to apply to be registered as British British citizens. As British citizens, they are free to make their home in the UK without being subjected to immigration control. The government has been very clear that the Diego Garcia military base and British Islands, Ocean Territory, will protect British nationality rights.

I give the noble Lord Lord German that assurance. The treaty and the bill make no changes to the citizenship that Chagossians are currently currently held, nor their rights to claim British citizenship. And as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron mentioned, this is all being debated in another piece of legislation. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK, should they wish to. The immigration status of Chagossians living in the UK, who do not wish to take up British British citizenship will not be impacted by the agreement between the UK and Mauritius.

In the government's view, this amendment is therefore unnecessary and would prevent the UK government from exercising its lawful powers to amend or alter immigration status of those subject to immigration control. In the UK, for example, if the basis upon which someone's immigration status was granted changes or and we've debated this many times in your Lordships' House, if an individual was convicted of a criminal offence for which they received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Furthermore, and I think this bill at this point is very salient, the amendment would also effectively prevent Chagossians from applying to amend their immigration status and prevent them from exercising rights to apply for citizenship should they so choose.

I would therefore ask the noble Lords, in the light of the assurance and the comments I have given, to withdraw the amendments for the reasons outlined.
19:18
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords are grateful, especially to Lord German for his support for this amendment. I'm delighted to finally be on the same page with him on this bill. After many days of committee and report, but he made a very compelling argument for for the for the basis of this amendment. And it is a very topical question. In our view, it's an opportunity to do right by the Chagossians and give them the statutory certainty that they deserve.

But I, in the circumstances of what has just been said by the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, I do beg you to withdraw the amendment. Your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is by leave withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will then move to dinner. Break business. I think to dinner. Break business. I think we will not return to the bill before 1958.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before 1958. I remind your lordships. The House does not need to resume because we're not in committee. But because we're not in committee. But the question is that further consideration on consideration on report, be now adjourned. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not Content to the contrary, not The duration of Commons amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

duration of Commons amendments and reasons on the public Error and Recovery) Bill Baroness Sanderson. My Lords. I.
19:20
None Portrait Consideration of Commons amendments: Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and/or reasons (around 7.30pm)
-

Beg to move that the Commons considered. reasons be now considered. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it motion a Baroness Sherlock o Baroness Anderson. Sorry.
19:20
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its amendment one and do agree with the Commons in their amendments one A and one B in lieu. I will also speak to motions B and D. My Lords, I want to start by thanking the House once again for the constructive debate and meticulous scrutiny that the public authorities forge. Error and Recovery) Bill has received throughout its passage has undoubtedly been strengthened, and I am grateful for the time noble Lords have put in engaging with the government.

I believe that the Bill is agreed by the House of Commons, makes a significant step in delivering this government's manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. At the same time. The bill now contains further significant safeguards on the use of the new powers for DWP and the PSFA, strengthened by the scrutiny and insight of your Lordships' House, my Lords, a moving motion a I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to motions B and D, which are grouped together.

I turn first to amendment one and the government amendments in lieu one A and one B. As I said during Lords report, the government were unable to accept the original drafting of this amendment. However, we have listened to the desire of your Lordships' House and with some technical changes, we are happy to propose these alternatives. I am grateful for the constructive discussions with the noble Lady Baroness Finn and the noble Lord Viscount Younger, who I'd like to wish a happy birthday to on these.

These will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. As my colleague, the Minister for transformation, set out when proposing this amendment. In the other place, the government believes it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise this new power due to the collaborative approach of the normal working of government. But it will be available if there is a genuine necessity. It is the government's intention to create a fraud investigation service.

This amendment is compatible with that continued intention. Our amendment in lieu also makes some consequential changes to clause two, to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for Social Security or His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, for the reason which has remained unchanged throughout the passage of the Bill, that those departments already have considerable resources and powers to tackle fraud and Social Security fraud, to tackle tax and Social Security fraud.

I now turn to Lords Amendments 30 and 31. As I set out in report. The government supports the principle behind these amendments. However, we could not accept the drafting as it stood. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and we agree that robust oversight, both internal and external, is essential. I am therefore grateful for the constructive and rewarding discussions with Baroness Finn and Viscount Younger very young today, and proposed the Alternative Government Amendments 31 A, 31 B and 31 C.

They have indicated their support and I hope the noble Lords will also support this amendment. These mandate statutory guidance and new reporting requirement and sets internal record requirements, recording requirements. The amendment strike the right balance of ensuring strong ministerial oversight and parliamentary oversight of the powers, without necessarily involving Ministers in operational decisions. Firstly, the statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline governance arrangements, delegation of powers to authorised officers and authorised investigators, standards for the training and appointment of authorised officers and investigators, and how the Minister will collaborate with an independent reviewer.

Secondly, a report will be prepared following the end of each financial year and laid in Parliament by the Minister stating how many times. Investigation and enforcement powers in part one of the bill have been used. This ensures regular ministerial and public visibility without compromising operational details. Lastly, there is now a requirement for the PSFA to keep internal written records of the exercise of the powers, which will be made available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer on the face of the bill, these records will specify the power, exercise, date, reason for use and by whom, ensuring internal accountability.

They will be made accessible to the independent reviewer who will act, who will assess the use of powers and produce a report which the Minister will publish and lay in Parliament. This addresses the need for a written record without public disclosure of sensitive information. Together, these these amendments underscore our commitment to transparency, oversight and accountability that we have maintained over the passage of the bill. We have also further committed during Commons committee to adhering to the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, adding the independent reviewer to the Order in Council.

Following the established process for agreeing post, which should be subject to Pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committee without the need for a legislative provision in the bill, and compiling a list of all the concerns raised in both houses to put before the independent reviewer, who will also meet with parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think their work should be focussed. I've also agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that because she really enjoys debating me at the despatch box, that initial statutory guidance will be subject to a take note debate in Grand Committee after it is laid in Parliament.

Together, the amendments ensure Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers in part one of the Bill and show how they are delegated in places they build on processes that would have already been in place. But we have brought them forward to the face of the Bill. I am grateful for the constructive discussions with the noble Baroness, lady on these amendments, and I'm pleased to put in place these commitments. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the motions, not to insist from the other place.

Finally, my Lords, I now turn to the minor and technical amendment the government made to Lords Amendment 75 to schedule two. The amendment 75 A simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation making power, which is set out by schedule two if or when the powers conferred under part one of the bill are transferred to another public authority, that is not within the scope of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body, it does not change the use of any of the powers laid out within the Bill.

I hope that noble Lords will support the motion from the other place. I beg to move.
19:27
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That motion A be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, thanks to the the government for listening to some of the some of the points to some of the some of the points made from from Baroness Finn myself and others. We are dealing here with with amendments A, B, and D. with with amendments A, B, and D. So let me deal with a first. The Lords amendment aim to give more powers to Ministers to take an investigatory or enforcement action and we, as you know, voted against it in the Lords due to it giving, in our view, too many powers to the in our view, too many powers to the Minister.

Government has to some extent listened and the amendment in lieu reaches what I would in lieu reaches what I would describe as a middle ground. And that seems to be, as far as I know, acceptable to other people who will be speaking in this debate. I be speaking in this debate. I believe coming first, I can't be certain of that. And on that basis, certain of that. And on that basis, from these benches, we are willing to accept the amendment in lieu on to accept the amendment in lieu on motion, on motion I.

And turning to to motion B, the Lords amendments to motion B, the Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to limiting the extent that powers can be used and ensuring that when powers are used, they are properly reported. As you know, we supported the amendments in the Lords, and we've noted again what the government's reaction has been. I reasonably pleased at the reaction the amendments reached, as I said in the other amendment, are middle ground. And and from these benches, we're we're minded to accept the amendment.

The amendment in lieu turning turning to motion d second in the papers. Motion. Forgive me. Motion. Motion. Motion D I've lost the link here. Motion D sorry. Yeah. Motion D which is the powers to establish the PSFA and transfer functions. The Lords amendment created the Public sector fraud authority. The amendment in lieu is a tidying up amendment. I think as the noble Lady, the Minister said in her speech and is uncontroversial. And on these benches, we accept that amendment in lieu.

And I look talk to the other amendments in due course.
19:30
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as we consider the the amendments brought forward by the government, I want to begin by recognising the diligent and constructive work undertaken across this House. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have examined almost every clause in detail, identified weaknesses and proposed sensible, proportionate reforms. And I think it is fair to say that as a result, the bill before us today is stronger, fairer and more workable. The government has listened to many of the concerns raised, not least from these benches and from the noble Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and I want to put on record our appreciation for the collaborative spirit with which the noble Baroness, the Minister's Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson and their officials have engaged.

Turning first to clause two, we welcome that the government have now substantively accepted the case that we on these benches made for empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority to undertake proactive investigations where credible evidence of fraud arises. The amendment, brought forward in lieu by the government substantively and textually, reflects the amendments originally advanced from these benches and represents a significant step forward. It means the PSFA can act swiftly on information, rather than waiting to be invited in by an authority to initiate an investigation.

I previously discussed the described the PSFA as toothless, but this change will strengthen deterrence, support whistleblowers, and potentially help to provide major losses to the public purse before they occur. It is a practical, proportionate reform and a good example of what can be achieved when this House works together to improve legislation. Turning to the amendments to clause 66, I want to acknowledge the strong cross-party support this House showed for proper ministerial oversight of the new investigatory powers, and I thank noble Lords across this House who showed their support.

Our amendment commanded a majority of 110 across party lines and political divides, a clear message to the government that the principles of accountability and transparency are vitally important. The government amendments in lieu introducing guidance, annual reporting and record record record keeping represent some progress. However, they fall short of the full safeguards that this House voted for. So this remains, I am afraid, half that version of the accountability measures proposed in our original amendment. The government has opted for guidance rather than binding regulation, meaning standards can be changed without further parliamentary scrutiny.

And there is also no requirement for ministerial authorisation when the most intrusive powers are exercised, something that 270 noble Lords agreed was a necessary safeguard. So oversight will now be largely retrospective rather than preventative. So while we will not oppose the government's position, we do so we support with reservation. Much now depends on the quality and transparency of the guidance that will follow, and we will scrutinise it closely when it comes before this House, I am grateful that the noble Lady of the Minister and Baroness Anderson has agreed that the initial statutory guidance will be subject to a take note debate in committee after it has laid in Parliament.

I very much look forward to our further debates on, on on subject, my Lords, these amendments work together to strengthen the PSFA and give it a clearer mandate to act proactively. But they also remind us that the fight against fraud must be matched by proper safeguards and accountability. The new provisions in this part of the bill leave it in a better place than when it entered this House. We will continue to monitor and ensure that the PSFA is both effective and answerable in the exercise of its considerable powers.
19:33
19:35
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords I beg to move motion C that the House do not insist on its amendment 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 40 have disagreed for their reason. 40 3AI will also speak to motions e and f for the leave of the house. I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord Lord Vaux for his continued constructive engagement on these issues. I hope today will reach a resolution with the amendments in lieu and assurances I will provide. But let us start with motion E and Lords Amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained using an Eligibility Verification Notice or even as drafted.

This amendment carries three key risks. First, it risks DWP not being able to use EVM information properly, even in those cases where it might be a strong indicator of potential fraud. Second, it risks legislating for a person's state of mind, and third, it risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the government amendments 84 and 84 B in lieu are presented as a substitute. These amendments address these risks.

Build on the amendments I tabled at Report stage and reflect the government's stated policy intent throughout Laming that EVM information considered in isolation cannot constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion or indicate wrongdoing. These amendments focus on the actions which DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information, and clarify that where DWP has received EVM information, staff must also have regard to all other relevant information held before taking further action first. This approach would require an authorised officer to consider all information held, which is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice under section 109 of the Social Security Administration Administration Act, 1992, as well as the relevant EVM information.

As a reminder, an information notice under the new section 109 Bza can only be issued where the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or intends to commit fraud, and that the authorised officer considers the notice necessary and proportionate for the purposes of investigating that suspicion. The amendments in lieu make clear that where EVM information is relevant to those considerations, the authorised officer must also consider non EVM information that is relevant to the question of whether to issue the notice.

Second, it requires that before DWP staff member can suspend benefit payments, they must consider all information held, which is relevant to the question of whether to suspend payments as well as the relevant EVM information. And finally, it requires that before DWP staff member can make a change to an earlier benefit decision, they must consider all information held, which is relevant to the question of whether to change that earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information. Now, DWP will always hold at least some further information on benefit claims, such as the presence or absence of relevant capital disregards, for example, or claimants declarations about capital or known vulnerabilities.

This amendment provides the necessary assurance that DWP staff will consider this context carefully before taking further action. I think this reflects the intent of the original amendment from the noble Lord Lord Vaux, as well as reflecting the government's stated policy intent. I am grateful for the noble Lord Lord Vaux engagement on this matter, and I hope these government amendments in lieu offer the necessary reassurance. I turn now to motion C and Lords Amendment 43 on the requirements of the Independent reviewer.

The noble Lord Lord Vaux knows I cannot accept this amendment, and I shall go through each part to explain why officials in my department have discussed part D with the finance industry, who agree that this may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. However, I have put on record before and will reassure the House again today that the government is committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate. I can assure the House we will continue working closely with businesses as we implement these measures to ensure this is done in the most efficient and effective way.

I have also previously committed to publishing a further updated impact assessment within 12 months of Royal Assent, taking into account the ongoing work with industry through our Test and Learn period, I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to the House today. As for part E Milords, there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We've been very clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and we've worked closely with the finance industry to provide clarity in the draft code of practice to prevent any such problems.

The role of the independent EVM reviewer is not to review every process which DWP carries out. Rather, it's to review the exercise and effectiveness of this data gathering power specifically, and to consider the government's compliance with the legislation. I have stressed often before that DWP has strong support in place for vulnerable people. For example, all DWP frontline operational colleagues are trained to help identify and support our most vulnerable customers. That includes mental health training and the ability to provide reasonable adjustments.

Amendments 84 and 84 b reaffirm that further decisions will not be taken without considering all relevant information in addition to EVM information, and of course, that would include any available information on vulnerabilities. Government amendments made. IT report also introduced a specific requirement that the Secretary of State be satisfied that it's necessary and proportionate to issue an even, and clarified that the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued is to assist in identifying incorrect payments. As such, the independent reviewer can assess the government's actions against these requirements as part of their consideration of compliance with the legislation.

We will work closely with the independent reviewer, especially in the test and learn phase, to identify any issues quickly and take steps to prevent or mitigate them. Turning to part F government amendments tabled at report address this point. They require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material. I hope this duty, alongside the government's commitment to work constructively with the reviewer, is sufficient. My noble friend Baroness Anderson made commitments that members will have an opportunity to meet with the SFA's independent reviewer.

Today, I offer the House a parallel commitment that there will be opportunities for members of this House to meet with the EVM independent reviewer and share their views with them once they are appointed. Finally, Lords motion f I turn to Lord Lord Vaux amendment 97 concerning DWP authorised investigators use of reasonable force. As I've made clear to the House, the powers of search and seizure, including warrant applications and production orders, are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Pace 1984. This also includes the power of reasonable force set out in section 117 of Pace. These powers will be used by expert DWP staff trained to industry standards to tackle serious and organised crime against DWP. As I outlined it report, I am not able to accept Lords Amendment 97 as drafted, although our stated policy intent is that DWP authorised investigators would not use reasonable force against a person. The reason I can't accept that amendment is that we cannot break down section 117 of pace to make the distinction between property and persons, and there is no precedent for specifying where or on what reasonable force may be applied in Pace.

The government's preferred approach is for DWP to take powers of reasonable force from Pace, following precedents from other government departments. However, my Lords, I have listened to the concerns expressed in the House and looked for another way to reflect the stated policy intent in the bill. The government has therefore introduced amendments in lieu 97 A 97, B 97, C 97, D 97 E and 97 F to clause 76 and schedule four schedule for. These reflect our stated policy intent and draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force exercisable by DWP authorised investigators and police officers or others with constable powers.

These amendments remove the power of reasonable force that was derived from section 107 of Pace, and instead create a standalone provision on reasonable force in this bill. This provision restricts DWP authorised investigators use of reasonable force to force against property only, while retaining the police's power to use reasonable force where necessary, against people and property. This delivers us. This delivers our stated policy intent but brings DWP power of reasonable force outside of pace. I believe this reflects the intent behind Lords Amendment 97, and I hope the noble Lord Lord Vaux will welcome it.

However, my Lords, this is a bespoke approach and it's important that we maintain the same safeguards. When DWP authorised investigators exercise reasonable force. My department are working closely with the Home Office on this to ensure that DWP authorised investigators will still operate in the same way as others with powers of reasonable force under pace. We will maintain compliance with Pace code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure. The Home Office have confirmed that secondary legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.

That will ensure the standalone provision in this bill will be subject to Pace code B. My department have also worked swiftly to secure assurances that inspection on the use of this standalone provision will be provided by HMRC, FRS and the IOPC. The other relevant powers of entry, search and seizure beyond reasonable force will still be drawn down from pace and are subject to the safeguards and operational standards of I've outlined outlined over the passage of the bill. A different approach has been adopted for the provisions in schedule four, which apply to Scotland, broadly replicating Pace, search and seizure provisions to achieve parity, but making some small necessary adaptations for Scots law.

Therefore, the amendments 97 to 97 F make equivalent changes to powers of reasonable force in Scotland. I hope this reassures noble Lords and puts this question about the use of reasonable force beyond doubt, as DWP authorised investigators now cannot use reasonable force against people. I hope the House will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this motion. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? My Lords, as we've just heard,
19:46
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
motion C, E, and F relate to amendments that I tabled at report and that the House very generously supported. Starting with motion C, which relates to amendment 43, this would have broadened the scope of the independent review of the use of the eligibility verification notice process, or even powers to consider the costs to the banking industry and the potential impact on vulnerable people. And I do regret that the government didn't feel able to accept that, and I am very grateful to those in the other place who supported it so passionately, including quite a number on on the government's own benches.

However, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for the assurances that she's given, especially in relation to the publication of a revised impact assessment and her offer that we shall have the opportunity to meet with the independent reviewer once the reviewer has been appointed. And I also take comfort from the point made by the Minister and the Other place, and repeated just now by the noble Lady, that the amendment that the government made to report, which requires that the use of powers must be necessary and proportionate, will potentially allow the independent reviewer to consider impacts on vulnerable people if concerns do arise.

So whilst I would have preferred that this amendment had been accepted on the basis of these assurances, I won't be pushing it further. Moving on to motion E, this Lords amendment would have made it clear that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone could not constitute reasonable suspicion, and that no action to suspend or change a benefit or utilise the extensive investigation powers that this bill creates could be taken unless the information had first been reviewed by a suitably qualified person.

This has been made even more important when we read about how the HMRC has behaved recently in respect of child benefit. HMRC used incomplete travel information and stopped paying benefit solely on the basis of that information, impacting up to 23,500 people unfairly. That is a tangible example of how information used in isolation without proper checks or review can cause real and unfair harm. It is essential, therefore, that even information alone should not be used to take decisions that may have a serious impact on someone who may be entirely innocent, and that all decisions should be reviewed by a person.

So we don't see something similar happening at DWP. Now, whilst not accepting the original amendments, the government has tabled amendments 84 A and B that do get us most of the way there so that the authorised officer or the Secretary of State must have regard to all information that they have. Importantly, including information that is not even information. Now, some concerns have been raised in the other place and outside about what would happen if the only information that the DWP has is even information.

Another lady, the Minister, sort of touched on that a moment ago, but perhaps it would be helpful in her winding up if she could comment a bit further on that. Is there any situation where, because the only information that they have is even information, that that could be the only basis for a decision. But otherwise, I think these amendments in lieu do substantially cover the concerns that were raised in this House, especially when we also take account of the government amendments passed by this House, that report that restrict the use of the even process, so that it may only be used to assist in identifying incorrect payments.

So thanking the noble Lady for her continuing constructive engagement in trying to meet the concerns raised by this House, I urge noble Lords to accept amendments 84 and A and B in lieu and support motion E finally moving to motion F, the bill grants a number of police powers to DWP officials, including the powers to use reasonable force, and the original amendment 97 would have restricted the use of reasonable force by DWP officials to force against items and property. The example that we've been given many times has been breaking into a filing Cabinet, rather than allowing force against people.

Again, I'm grateful to the noble Lady for the government amendments in lieu. These, in effect, turn the amendment around rather than taking the general power to use reasonable force, but then restricting it to items and property as the original amendment did. The amendments in lieu remove the general power to use reasonable force, but introduce a bespoke power for DWP officials to use reasonable force only against items and property. So ultimately, very much the same thing, and I'm also very pleased that the amendments in lieu retain the oversight from the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is an important safeguard.

So, again, with thanks to the noble Lady for her engagement on this, I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments in lieu and support motion. F my Lord, with these amendments and the others that have also been proposed, the safeguards around the use of the significant new powers that this Bill will give to the Cabinet Office and DWP, have been strengthened. I think this is a very good example of how this House can improve legislation, and I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have been so supportive and constructive throughout the process, and in particular the noble Lady ladies, the Ministers, for their always constructive engagement throughout, which has allowed us to make real improvements to the bill.

It now achieves a better balance between achieving what is intended to reduce fraud and error, whilst being fairer and better, protecting vulnerable people. Well done. vulnerable people. Well done.
19:51
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. I would also like to thank the Minister for her constructive approach. Hasn't always answered all the questions, but it's gone a long way to do that. And I also wish to put on record our thanks to the Lord Vaux for his very constructive initiatives on which some of these amendments are based, and for the Baroness Penn for for all the informative stuff that's come from her. I'm just going to well, I've got to talk about C, E and F, first of all.

See, the Lords amendment was agreed upon by this chamber to ensure that the impacts of this legislation on the most vulnerable in society are properly considered by the Secretary of State. Whilst the government has been and I stress has been forthcoming in offering compromise solutions. It is disappointing that it did not offer any really alternative solution. I was pleased to see the Liberal Democrat benches in the other place, pushed this issue to a vote, and was disappointed to see that neither Labour nor Conservative benches support this amendment.

Despite disappointing as this is, I appreciate the Government and Parliament has made its mind up on the issue. I'm not going to break ranks and and push a vote today on this. The bill introduced and the independent review on the use of eligibility verification powers. And this Lords amendment expands the scope of this review to ensure that the costs are proportionate to consider whether the exercise of Secretary of State powers in schedule three has had any adverse effect on vulnerable people, and to consider the ability of benefits claimants to access banking services.

We, as you know, supported from these benches the Lords amendment and the government have sadly disagreed. We're saying that it's not appropriate to make further provision about reviews relating to eligibility verification measures. Whilst it is disappointing that the government has not looked to be as constructive as perhaps we would like it to be, it's it is clear to me that we're unlikely to make further progress on it than the pace we've reached, and on that basis, I do not intend to challenge the Commons Commons Commons response.

Turning turning to to e! The use of reasonable force. This is a point I raised a lot at the earlier stages. Lies at the heart of guaranteeing civil liberties for all citizens, and ensuring that no innocent party is treated unfairly and without cause. The original Lords amendment would have prevented authorised officers from using force against person during entry, search and seizure, and I am pleased to see that the amendment in lieu continues this principle. Whilst explicitly explicitly outlining that it is only constables who are trained in the proportionate use of force, who will be able to use reasonable force in respect of persons.

We spoke about force on on filing cabinets, but it's the persons that we're really concerned about whilst I and these other and these on the Liberal Democrat benches will therefore support the government's amendment in lieu, we will continue to make sure the powers granted this legislation relating to the use of force are used proportionately. We will make sure to carefully scrutinise the independent review which has been promised on the exercise of the functions, which includes the reasonable use of force.

Then the Secretary of State must commission and later publish, and I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will give some idea when that's going to be published. Any assurance the Minister give the House on this independent review, and when it will come will be very, very much, very much appreciated. Turning, turning to, turning to F. The Lords amendment would have prevented. Authorised officers. Is that the one we've just done? So that's it. So so on the basis of that, we we welcome the constructive comments the government made and the points that Lord Vaux has made in introducing these amendments.

And we do not intend to press further on these issues.
19:56
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as we come to this final group of government amendments on the DWP section of the Bill, I want to begin by recognising the real progress that has been made on the DWP use of Pace powers and eligibility verification provisions. Progress that has been driven by this House's detailed scrutiny and the persistence of members from all sides, not least the noble Lord Lord Vaux of Harrowden, the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley and the noble Lord Lord Verdirame.

Throughout, we on these benches have sought to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance. Strong on fraud prevention, but fair, proportionate and mindful of its impact on vulnerable people. We therefore welcome the government's concessions in several areas, which have come about as a result of the sustained pressure applied by this House. Amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism. Our overriding concern has been the impact on vulnerable individuals and those at risk of financial exclusion. The system must not lead to people being banked, subject to excessive deductions, or left unable to access essential services.

We are pleased that the government has now committed to an assurance that Parliament will be able to engage with the independent reviewer after Royal assent to explore these issues, and that the concerns that we have raised here and in the other place will be formally shared with the reviewer. I am also grateful that the Minister and the Other place claimed that the May must changes as claimed. The May must changes as a government initiative. Imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery.

But they were in fact first proposed from these conservative benches. Another example of the constructive scrutiny that has improved the bill. And I'm sure the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be keen to correct this. On the record, my Lords, we welcome the government's concession on amendments 84 and 84. B these make clear that human decision makers must have regard to all relevant information and ensures that human judgement remains embedded in the process. It protects against the risks of mechanistic or AI driven decision making, ensuring that not only now but into the future.

As these technologies evolve and become more widespread. This is a sensible safeguard and a direct result of arguments advanced in your Lordships' House regarding Pace powers. I am pleased that the government has finally accepted that DWP investigators should not be able to use reasonable force against individuals. This corrects a serious flaw in the text of the bill, and aligns its provisions with the government's own stated policy. It makes the law safer, clearer and more coherent, and I really do thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her valiant efforts in this area, but would comment that it is surprising, especially given that it protects the integrity of the government's own stated policy, that it should have required so much persuasion from your Lordships' House to get for the government to get to this position.

My Lords, as a result of the changes made to the Bill in this House, the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the DWP will be better equipped to act against fraud while operating within a framework of stronger safeguards. Because of the efforts on these benches and others, the PSFA will be proactive but also more accountable and more transparent. And the as a result of the work of the noble Lord Lord Vaux also and also another noble Lords, vulnerable people will be better protected and represented in the independent review, and the use of artificial intelligence will be subject to clearer human oversight.

Fundamentally, the use of Pace powers will be strictly limited to property, not people. Having said all that, there are still gaps in the bill. The government has yet to engage seriously with the growing problem of sick fluencies online figures who use their platforms to encourage and advise people to make fraudulent benefits claims. Unless the government begins to analyse and address this issue, it risks falling behind and missing this opportunity to tackle a tackle. A significant driver of future fraud risk. My Lords, we welcome the progress achieved, but we will continue to raise the issues we have championed during the passage of this bill and keep a watchful eye on how these provisions are enacted.

The bill now better reflects the need to protect the public from fraud and the duty to safeguard the public. It leaves your Lordships' House in a far better place than when it arrived, and demonstrates once again, as Lord Vaux has said, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constructive and vitally important work of this House. My Lords, I thank all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I'm really grateful
20:01
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
debate, and I'm really grateful that all, all nobles will contribute, who've done this all the way through have conceded. We have reached a point, I think, where we're all now content to move forward with this really important bill in terms of the specifics and the noble Lord Lord Vaux asked, but could could we would we move forward without any other information? I mean, DWP will always hold some further other information on benefit claims, but it is crucial that appropriate weight can be given to information if necessary.

And that's the reason we took the approach we did in the new amendment, because it makes clear that where information is relevant to a question, DWP must also consider non EVM information that's also relevant, but that other information could take different forms. It could be about the presence or absence of a disregard or other information as I went through. So I hope that helps. I'm not going to go through because in a sense, most of the questions raised are ones we have been through in considerable detail to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I would say that the reason that the government didn't accept the, the, the, the amendment that we rejected it was because we had I think I went through in some detail in my speech explaining why we didn't do that, all the concessions we've made previously, the amendments government produced a report, and the fact that we felt it was covered off all the areas where it could be covered off.

We have we have done in terms of reasonable force. I have no doubt that, as you said, that the Liberal Democrats will be watching carefully how the powers in this bill are used. But, my Lords, thanks to the very considerable changes that this government has brought in, there is now extensive oversight. So the Liberal Democrats will be watching the use of reasonable force. So, my Lords, in terms of the powers in this bill, so will the IOPC, so will HMRC ACRS, so will the independent reviewer.

There will be lots and lots of oversight of the use of powers in this bill. So the Liberal Democrats and other members will be in good company. But, my Lords, I think we can safely say that unlike previous incarnations, a lot of people will be watching this, and we've made sure everybody will know what they think about it. And I'm not going to dwell in any great detail about the other points that have been raised, because I think we've covered them all off. I simply want to say that I hope the House can now unite behind the fact that it is in all of our interests to make sure that fraud and error are tackled in our Social Security system and in our public services, because this is what we should all be gathering around doing.

Public money is tight enough. We need to make sure it goes to the places that are needed and to the people that's needed, but I'm really grateful for the constructive engagement. I think we have a better bill now as a result, and we will all be able to go out there and get behind this now as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tackle the scourge of fraud and error in our society. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that. Motion C be agreed to as many that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it motion d Baroness Sherlock. I've already spoken to motion D

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've already spoken to motion D so with the leave of the house I beg to move the remaining motions. En bloc the question is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

En bloc the question is the motion d to e be agreed to En bloc as many of that opinion will say content contrary not content, the content contrary not content, the contents have it, but have a short break before I call the next business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion. F has moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner. To move motion F formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move motion F formally. I move motion D to F en bloc and the House agreed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House agreed. No you didn't mention. That opinion will say content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That opinion will say content. Content. Content not content. The contents have it. We will have a short break before I call the next Diego Diego Garcia Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill order of commitment. Baroness Chapman of Darlington.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the. Committal motion standing in my. Name on the Order Paper. My Lords.
20:05
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. We had a vigorous debate of the Bill at Second Reading last week, and I thank each and every noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I thank each and every noble Lord who participated. In. The debate. I understand. And respect the concerns. That have been raised. Both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That have been raised. Both inside. And outside this House. It's worth repeating what I said It's worth repeating what I said last week. This government is committed to supporting and encouraging the thorough scrutiny

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this Bill. Through. Its progression. Noble Lords will. Understand the reason.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understand the reason. For the delay to the committal motion last week. The lack of motion last week. The lack of notice provided to the House by the opposition regarding its amendment to the motion made it impractical to the motion made it impractical to proceed, and I am pleased that now the dust is settled, we are able to proceed with the committal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to proceed with the committal motion as originally planned. My Lords, I. Want to. Reassure that this short

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reassure that this short interruption will not impact the timing of Committee stage, which will be on the 18th and the 25th of November. Noble Lords the debate at Second Reading reflected the Second Reading reflected the strength of feeling across the House on this important issue, and I want to take this opportunity to I want to take this opportunity to address some of those concerns. Last week we heard the concern Last week we heard the concern across the House that Chagossian perspectives were not sufficiently reflected in the treaty and the bill, and I respect and understand this concern.

However, noble Lords this concern. However, noble Lords will also know that there is a considerable diversity of opinion considerable diversity of opinion across Chagossian communities. So to inform further debate on this matter and to demonstrate the government's commitment to the Diego Garcia to to the Chagossian community, the government would like to invite the International Relations and Defence Committee to engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the impact and the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty and produce a report.

This process will not hold up the passage of the bill, but will be a welcome addition to debate in the House. It will be for the Committee to determine the timing of the report, and I would like to extend my thanks to the noble Lord Lord de Mauley, who has agreed in principle to undertake this work. I also welcome the challenge we heard to increase the participation of Chagossians in political processes. Noble Lords will know that the government has established a Chagossian contact group to provide Chagossians with a formal role in decision making on the UK government's support for their community.

Following last week's debate, the government will explore opportunities to enhance that group both by increasing its transparency and frequency. We are clear, however, that any decisions made about the contact group must be made in agreement with its existing members, and the government will be engaging the group on this question shortly. Further concerns were raised at Second Reading about the Chagossian Trust Fund and British Chagossians eligibility for resettlement. The government is committed to making a statement about both, about both to the House as soon as can be practically, practically be achieved.

Noble Lords will understand that this should only happen with the agreement of the Mauritian government, which the government is urgently pursuing. My Lords, I welcome the discussion we had on the bills, defence and security provisions. I would like to reassure Baroness Goldie that I am committed to writing a response to the forensic questions that she asked last week. This response will be sent later this week, and a copy will be laid in the library of the house. Finally, I'm aware that noble Lords have a strong interest in the protection of the environment around the Chagos Islands.

Last week, I mentioned that the government has welcomed the announcement of the Mauritian Prime Minister's Office on the 3rd of November, confirming Mauritian plans for the establishment of a marine protected area after entry into force of the treaty. This protected area will utilise the internationally recognised categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square km area. The Grand Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as a highly protected conservation zone.

My Lords will be reassured that there will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zoned areas intended for resettlement to allow for subsistence fishing by any Chagossian communities that resettle, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation. Noble Lords. It is clear that this bill is fundamental to the operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the protection of national security. This government has also demonstrated its firm commitment to supporting Chagossians and enhancing environmental protections for the archipelago.

I look forward to further debate on these important move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. My Lords, my noble friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callanan will respond to the noble Lady, the Minister, on behalf of these benches. But I have been requested to make a brief intervention on the issues of defence and security. And in respect of this, I'm rather in the horns of a dilemma. I feel as though I'm being asked to judge the weight of the baby when the baby weight of the baby when the baby hasn't been born yet, because I don't know what the letter from the noble Lady the Minister is going to noble Lady the Minister is going to say until I receive it.

But I would like to thank the noble Minister and her colleagues for their genuine and close engagement with genuine and close engagement with myself, my noble friend Lord Callaghan and our colleagues. As we endeavoured to clarify issues. But endeavoured to clarify issues. But the assurance I seek from the noble Lady this evening from the despatch box, is this. It is of course, box, is this. It is of course, possible, when we receive the letter from the noble Lady, the Minister, we may disagree with the government's interpretation.

We may consider that areas of ambiguity and doubt remain, and in that and doubt remain, and in that respect, of course, we would reserve the right to bring forward amendments at Committee stage. But amendments at Committee stage. But I would be very disappointed if the government's response to that was government's response to that was that these amendments are out of scope of the bill, that they are incompetent, that all matters are dealt with by the agreement. And that would seem to me a very unfortunate response by the government.

So I seek a reassurance from the noble Lady Minister that Dispatch Box tonight, that if we do table amendments on these defence and security issues, the government will be prepared to debate them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lord. Just very briefly, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Just very briefly, I mentioned in our debate last week the Chagos Refugees group, led by the Chagos Refugees group, led by Olivier Bronco. And that's the the biggest group of Chagossians. And I just want to quote two paragraphs just want to quote two paragraphs from a statement he is made today. I wish to explain how important it is for the British government to is for the British government to make amends for the cruel treatment of our Chagossian community by endorsing the Diego Garcia and Biot endorsing the Diego Garcia and Biot bill at the Committee stage in the House of Lords, and with the UK government set to return Chagos to its rightful sovereign, we urge all its rightful sovereign, we urge all House of Lords members to support and pass this measure to aid the Chagossian community to delay or Chagossian community to delay or frustrate.

It will cause further societal damage to our worldwide community. I think that injunction is worth taking on board.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is worth taking on board. My Lords, this is a little bit of unfinished business from last week. It's a little bit more week. It's a little bit more temperate to so far. The note I note the agreement between the conservative opposition and the Labour government. To advance the Bill. This will be to its next stages for implementing the treaty. These benches hold our committees in this House in high regard. I am certain that the IDC will carry out the work diligently and provide much valued information for us in advance of Report stage.

I also would hope that the amendments that any member would wish to bring at committee will be considered in the normal way and indeed, within the scope of the long title of the Bill. And it means that the questions that had been raised from these benches consistently on the right of return, and the determining the views of the Chagossian community on self-determination, the legal pinning, legal underpinning of the MPA, which is a positive development. But nevertheless we do seek further information with regards to how that will be guaranteed and underwritten under Mauritian law and indeed, oversight of the expenditure.

The expenditure to the benefit of the Chagossian community, in particular themselves, and the mechanisms of how the community, as my noble friend whose rights have been denied them for generations, can have rights going forward, we hope that all of these aspects will be able to be aired properly at committee. And indeed, if we seek to test the opinion of the House at Report stage two. So I note the agreement between the opposition and the government, and we should just get on with considering the issues that these benches have raised consistently.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, let me firstly thank the government and the Chief Whip in particular for the Whip in particular for the constructive discussions that we've been able to have since the Second been able to have since the Second Reading. As the House will be aware, we took the unusual step of tabling an amendment to the committal an amendment to the committal motion last week, which would have required a government consultation of the Chagossian community before of the Chagossian community before the beginning of Committee stage.

And then the government surprisingly withdrew their committal motion. I'm pleased that following discussions in usual channels over the past week, the government have confirmed the government have confirmed the Report stage will not now commence before the New Year, allowing more before the New Year, allowing more time for the proper scrutiny of this important bill. This will allow the views of the Chagossian community to be taken into account community to be taken into account as part of our scrutiny of the Bill as part of our scrutiny of the Bill at Report stage.

It is also very welcome news that the government have committed to publishing further details of the Chagossian further details of the Chagossian contact Group, and that further details on the trust Fund for the Chagossians will now be published. Chagossians will now be published. Finally, I also welcome the statements of my noble friend Baroness Goldie and here that the government have committed to respond in detail to the very legitimate concerns that she has raised on the defence aspects of the treaty, and, I hope, lay a copy of their response in the library.

And in light of what I think is positive movement from the government, we will not seek to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oppose the motion today. Well done, well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done, well done. I thank noble Lords who've taken part in this debate on Baroness Goldie question about being asked to judge the weight of the baby to judge the weight of the baby before the baby is born. I think I'm in a similar position when she talks about her amendments, because talks about her amendments, because without knowing what she's going to attempt to table, it's very difficult to know if there'd be in difficult to know if there'd be in scope.

Obviously, the clerks of the House will advise on this, but I House will advise on this, but I can assure Baroness Goldie and Lord Purvis as well, who also raised this, that the government does this, that the government does intend to approach the Committee stage in a constructive way, and stage in a constructive way, and that when amendments are tabled that are helpful and would improve the bill and would not interrupt the treaty and its implementation, but enhance it, particularly when it comes to engagement with the Chagossian community, then we will, of course, debate them as we of course, debate them as we normally do, and then we can return to resolve issues should we need to to resolve issues should we need to at report.

And I very much look forward to getting on with that process. I thank Baroness Ludford for, I think she's probably the one of the best informed participants in the debate that we had last week. She shakes her head very modestly, but I thank her for reminding us of the diversity of opinion that there clearly is among Chagossian communities. And I, I expect and I hope that that is something that is surfaced as part of the committee's work. And I also thank Lord Purvis for the constructive way that he's approached this throughout so far.

We're still at early stages, but I having worked with him for some time now, I expect that that is how we will continue, and I very much look forward to getting into Committee stage so that we can thrash some of this out, get some answers to questions that noble Lords quite rightly, have of the government, and that we can do our job, as this chamber so often does, with the rigour and passion and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diligence that we always apply. I beg to move. The question is that this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it content. The contents have it report of the Border Security, asylum and immigration Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. The question is that this bill be no further considered on report, as many of that opinion will say,
20:19
None Portrait Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - report stage (day 4) - part two
-

content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 79 Baroness Coussins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Coussins. My Lords, the. Three. Amendments in this group are in
20:19
Baroness Coussins Portrait Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, who unfortunately Lord Hogan-Howe, who unfortunately is unable to be in the chamber this evening. But I'd like to thank him for his support. And I'd also like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord Lord Katz, his officials and the Bill team for the meetings they've had with me and the noble Lady, Baroness Ludford, and for taking our concerns seriously and sympathetically. I should also declare my interests as co-chair of the All party Group on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

My amendments, my Lords, are designed to clarify and specify once and for all that where interpreters and translators are needed by asylum seekers and others to whom the procedures in this bill would apply, that those interpreters and translators must be qualified professionals and not, as I said at Committee stage, just someone who happens to speak a bit of the language in question, someone from the office or a friend or a neighbour, for example. We're talking about serious, possibly life changing circumstances and about procedures which will involve technical and specialist knowledge and vocabulary, and the use of properly qualified interpreters isn't just for the benefit of the individuals concerned, but also for the Home Office itself, because it's important for claimants to have their case accurately presented in order to avoid errors of fact, or in understanding which could lead to time consuming and costly appeals.

In the helpful discussions I've had, the noble Lord Lord Katz has brought my attention to immigration rule 339, which says in part, and I quote, The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case wherever necessary. So far, so good, my Lords. I've also been made aware of the Home Office's interpreters code of conduct, which I hadn't come across before, but which provides a very strong foundation for what I'm trying to achieve, even though I think there are some gaps there, apart from the need to clarify, interpreters and translators being professional and qualified, my concerns are twofold.

One, that translators as well as interpreters should be included in the rules, regulations and the code. For example, the 2007 Asylum Procedures Regulations only mention interpreters, not translators, and these are two very different functions requiring different skills and different training. And secondly, I think it must be made clear that the code, which is, after all, for guidance and not statutory. It must be made clear that the code is rigorously monitored for compliance. On the question of translators, I understand that the reason they're not included at the moment in the code of conduct or in regulations, is that translation services are contracted out.

So I'd really like to know a little bit more about the outsourcing process and contract, and in particular, whether there is consistency in the standards of professionalism and qualifications required of translators and interpreters alike. I understand that the government is reluctant to place those two key words of mine, professional and qualified, on the face of the bill, in case that should lead to a loss of flexibility. In cases where there's a need for an interpreter of a rare language for which the standard qualifications for public service interpreters simply aren't available, meaning that the Home Office has to turn elsewhere for someone suitable.

But I'd be grateful if the Minister could explain a bit more about why they feel this hesitation, especially in view of the fact that the National Register of Public Service Interpreters does have its own protocols for interpreters of rare languages in this very situation. And I have to say, I didn't encounter this sort of hesitation or reluctance over those two words, professional and qualified. When we were debating the then Victims and Prisoners Bill, when Labour in opposition strongly supported an amendment to the Victims Code to make it say, if you have and I quote, if you have difficulty understanding or speaking English, you have the right to be provided with a qualified professional interpreter to help you to understand and communicate effectively.

So I've been a bit nervous about promises to amend guidance and codes, simply because that amendment to the victims code has never actually happened. Although I also have to say that I have had a much more positive experience with the Ministry of Justice. On another issue, the MoJ. In lieu of amendments, I proposed to the then police, Courts Sentencing and Crime Bill responded very positively by commissioning a detailed, independent review of the qualifications and experience required of interpreters in our courts and tribunals, and this has proved to be a really successful exercise which, when fully implemented, will no doubt improve both services and justice, as well as saving the government money by avoiding case, adjournments and appeals.

So I'd very much like to hear something similar and convincing tonight to reassure me that any strengthening or clarification of the Home Office's Code of Conduct, however good a point, a point, a starting point it most certainly already is, will actually be undertaken and not just promised and in short order, and be independently conducted with the involvement of stakeholders in the sector. If that were to be undertaken. My Lords, along with an assurance about consistency of standards for translators, I believe my concerns about professionalism and qualifications could be satisfied without troubling the House to divide on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments. But for now, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
20:26
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48 and the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 70 9ZA as an amendment to amendment 79, Baroness Coussins moved formally. Amendment proposed after subsection five, insert the words as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. Lord Hay. I just wanted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hay. I just wanted to second what Baroness Coussins had has said, and in the same way as I has said, and in the same way as I supported her at Committee stage, and I was pleased to join her in a meeting with the Minister Lord Katz and I apologise. I wasn't able to and I apologise. I wasn't able to do so yesterday. He has been very helpful in in making himself helpful in in making himself available to discuss this subject.

available to discuss this subject. The reason that I was drawn into supporting Baroness Coussins was, supporting Baroness Coussins was, well, the, the the the, the merits of the issue, so to speak, for of the issue, so to speak, for themselves, but also because I'd been involved in a previous life in promoting access to interpretation and translation services for defendants in the criminal justice defendants in the criminal justice system. EU directive. So I wanted system. EU directive.

So I wanted to transfer my support to the area of asylum law, and indeed it's on. EU derived law that I just wanted to say a word. Baroness Coussins also mentioned the Asylum Procedures Regulations 2007, and I must confess, I, I was interested to see that reference in a letter that was kindly made available to me as well, that a noble Lord Lord Katz sent to Baroness Coussins dated the 24th of October. I think that followed the meeting we'd had with him and officials, where, I must confess, it didn't cross my mind to look at the implementation of the EU Asylum Procedures Directive.

This stuff is all getting quite old now for me, but I was involved in the debates on that directive, which is 2005. Good heavens, 20 years ago. But that that only. So I was interested, if little surprise, to see the regulations, the UK regulations which implemented that directive mentioned subsequently to our meeting in the letter of the 24th of October. And I just read out the paragraph in that letter. The Asylum Procedures Regulations 2007 implemented basic standards for asylum system procedures, including translation provision, as part of the UK's transposition of Council Directive 2005, stroke 85, blah blah blah on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and then regulation five provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals and in proceedings in the higher courts.

This regulation remains in force. I think there is some confusion or confounding of translation and interpretation in that paragraph, because I think it's right. The last sentence, last the second to last sentence is right. That regulation five of those regulations provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals. Because I've looked checked the directive, and indeed it only refers to interpreting, it doesn't actually refer to translation of documents. But this paragraph in the letter actually referred to translation provision.

It's absolutely true that sometimes those two terms do get conflated. And but I think I've understood properly the the government is saying that this only applies to interpretation, but I am and I'd just like to get some explanation, if I could, from the Minister. I mean, if these these regulations are still in force, despite the reference to translation, I think we've understood they only apply to interpreting right to an interpreter. So can they be mentioned in the in the minister's reply and and and and reassurance.

Because I'm not entirely sure why they haven't been so far when they were in this letter, but I don't think they're in the what the Minister intends, I think, to assure us about tonight. So if he could integrate the famous asylum procedures regulations into the code that he's, I think, going to talk about, if he could show how they work together, I would be very grateful. But overall, I don't want to go on on any more. And I support Baroness Coussins and I congratulate her for her persistence in pursuing this very important subject, which is which is important for the asylum applicant to be able to understand, to be able to be understood.

And it's important for the for the. Taxpayer to get to make sure that we have efficient processes which don't run on because there are defects through lack of understanding. So I thank Baroness Coussins as much as I thank the Minister.
20:32
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, these amendments raise a very important point. I'm very grateful to Baroness Coussins for opening the group with the arguments she made. The important point is the need to ensure that interpretation and translation services in our asylum and immigration system are both adequate and effective, self-evidently clear and accurate communication is essential to the fairness and integrity of any decision making process, and that's particularly true in cases which can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. And the amendments before us seek to strengthen the standards applied to interpreters and translators.

And that is in principle very sensible and worthwhile aim before we consider making changes to the existing framework, it would be more helpful to understand from a noble Lord, the Minister, the the current position in a little more detail, the noble Baroness laid out specific deficiencies that she believes are presently affecting the system for providing these services. Objective standards are, of course important, but some are already in place under the current arrangements, such as the Interpreters Code of Conduct, and they will.

Baroness mentioned this in her speech and the need for a review of that code. If there are demonstrable gaps or failings in quality assurance. And that was certainly merit attention. And indeed we would welcome assurances from the noble Lords Minister on this point that the concerns raised by Baroness Coussins are being actively addressed. But equally, if existing mechanisms are already achieving those aims, we should be cautious about introducing introducing additional prescription which may duplicate what is already in operation.
20:34
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
The Lords the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly for asylum decision maker, indeed, for the whole of the the government's processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the the noble Baroness Baroness Coussins said in her in moving these amendments, paragraph three, three, nine and of the immigration rules provides that the Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case wherever necessary.

Further, the Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview. Interpreters, my Lords, are required to interpret it to a high standard on a range of protection based and human rights topics, including, though not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender based claims. All types and forms of persecution, medical, both physical and mental health, and indeed political activity. So to to to be clear, it's really important that we are having this debate.

And I am again very grateful to Baroness Coussins and also Baroness Ludford, for bringing this subject matter to the to to the House's attention. We're able to have a further discussion about it. I'd also like particularly salute Baroness Coussins Indefatigability. I would say if I can get that pronounced that correctly around raising this subject and also being able to be flexible and meet myself under an officials to to kind of help get clarification on on the subject. This important subject area.

Her amendment 79 97ZA and 79 sorry 79 79ZA and 79 F seek to amend the provisions relying to interpret relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum Procedures Regulations 2007. The amendment seeks to include that interpreters must be professionally qualified, my Lords, for an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Services Interpreters, or hold one of the qualifications or assessments as listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness Baroness Coussins has already referred.

This code of Conduct exists to ensure expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met, and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage, and Baroness Coussins has been keen throughout this process, and also tenacious and stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. And we feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and also the practice that we see within it. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner, and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person or remotely, via video conference, or indeed audio only prompt and decisive action is taken where the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.

The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join the Home Office's panel of interpreters to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Services interpreters on IOPC, or hold a special qualification or assessment specified. Qualification or assessment. There may be instances where language is particularly rare, where the Home Office will accept documented proof of of hours, worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case by case basis and must be approved by a senior manager.

But it is very much these exceptional cases, my Lords, that we wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has, rather than having a specification on the face of the bill, which might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is is required, the minimum standards that are set out are long standing, and they demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove they are proficient before being accepted onto the Home Office interpreter panel.

They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures even those who speak rarer language, rarer languages than can be serviced by the Home Office Home Office protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all published on UK. My Lords, it's considered that amending the immigration rules in the way envisaged by this amendment would have little impact in this regard. As I said, the Code of Conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the stance of conduct and behaviour.

Interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality. The noble Baroness Baroness Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interest of the department, the interpreter and others involved and the wider public, and, of course, the the claimant.

The way the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive asylum and immigration cases. Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter and Language Service Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of Conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered to determine any further action. The amendment also seeks to include translator within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph three, three, nine, and of the Rules and Asylum Procedures Regulations.

This relates to providing a public translator to allow an applicant to submit their case, appeal their claim, as well as translator to ensure appropriate communication and interview. And of course, Baroness Ludford in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the around the role of of of of of trance of translation in in in the the Home Office rules and code of conduct. And I will come to what she was referring to in a little time. The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has.

If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit translation. Noting this on the interview record, specifically on translation services. To be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by the Big Word, who have stringent quality control processes in place to ensure translations meet the high standards. Whilst I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Coussins for the amendment and indeed the wider debate we've had on this issue, both tonight and also at Committee stage, the government sees no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I'd invite her to withdraw her amendments.

As I've said, it's important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that provide, particularly interpreter services because of specifically very rare languages and too much specificity on the face of the bill could actually prove constricting of the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and also obviously provide have have a negative impact on, on on our ability to provide a fair, a fair and effective and efficient system. However, I'm pleased to say, following our extensive discussions with officials, I'm happy to commit the Home Office from the Dispatch Box to work with stakeholders to review the interpreters Code of Conduct and Provision of translation Services to address Baroness Ludford point, including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to PAC standards.

As I've already set out. Given that commitment tonight, and given the conversations that we've had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that will satisfy Baroness Baroness Coussins and she sees fit to withdraw her amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his
20:43
Baroness Coussins Portrait Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Katz, very much for his response and for and especially from for the support from the noble Lady, Baroness Ludford. I'm encouraged that my concerns have been well understood, and I do appreciate the commitment to review the interpreters code of conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. I would only ask at this stage that the government really does resist kicking this issue into touch and forgetting it, as happened with the forgetting it, as happened with the victims code, but goes very quickly to to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review, which I warmly welcome.

And on that hopeful note, I thank the Minister once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again and beg leave to withdraw my three amendments. Is it your lordships pleasure that amendments 70 9ZA be withdrawn amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 79 also withdrawn. Is it Amendment 79 also withdrawn. Is it your lordships pleasure that amendment 79 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 79 a not moved. Amendment. Amendment 79 a not moved. Amendment. 79 be not moved. We come now to amendment 79. C Baroness Maclean of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Redditch. My Lords. These amendments. Are tabled after. I tried. And failed to obtain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And failed to obtain. Information that I. interest. From the government. From written questions and briefings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

briefings. From the library. Amendment 79 C. On modern slavery would require the government. To. Publish an annual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Publish an annual. Report of grants. Of asylum. Or refugee status on modern slavery grounds. We currently do
20:45
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

slavery grounds. We currently do not know precisely if, to what or to what extent. The the National Referral. Mechanism and Modern Slavery

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mechanism and Modern Slavery Support system. Is being. Abused as. A loophole for illegal migration. When people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Suggest that it is. We're told. this. Why don't we have. This evidence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because the government. Doesn't publish any. I laid out the. Statistics that. Underline my. Concerns in. Early.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Early. Debates, so I won't repeat them. interests. Of. Charities or those.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charities or those. Working with victims to. Agree that the system could. Be. Being abused. But, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surely it should be the duty of the government to be able to demonstrate that public money is. Being well. Spent and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spent and. Moreover, that we know who. Is a genuine. Victim and. Who isn't. I would hope. That any. Minister serving in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister serving in. The Home Office. Would actually welcome this operational. performance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

performance. And if it is the case that nobody is abusing. The system. Of course everybody would be very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very. Pleased and satisfied. But the current approach of the government does seem, I'm afraid to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government does seem, I'm afraid to be, to hope that we just give up asking. Those difficult questions. Amendment 79.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 79. Is based. On information in the asylum system based on conversion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system based on conversion to Christianity. I've tabled written questions to the Home Office and question the Minister. In this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this. House to find. Out how many asylum claims have been accepted based on religious conversions in based on religious conversions in each of the past five years in respect of conversions to Christianity, Islam, Judaism and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Any other religion. And I got the following written answer I quote the requested answer I quote the requested information being accepted based on religious. Conversion is not available from. Published

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statistics, and the relevant data. Could only. Be collated and verified. For the purpose of answering this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question at disproportionate cost. End quote I have. Discussed this. Amendment with. The Anglican.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Anglican. Bishop Matthew Firth. He has. Spoken out about this topic a. Number of times. After he was brave enough to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After he was brave enough to come forward and say that he's seen extensive cases of abuse of Christian baptism in. The. Church by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Church by. Male asylum seekers. He described people coming to him in his former parish church in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his former parish church in Darlington, representing groups of. Asylum seekers, saying these. People need to. Be baptised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be baptised. And in giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in. March 2024. He stated. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. Vast majority. If not all. Of the. People seeking asylum who were. Coming to. Him for baptism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coming to. Him for baptism. Were doing so after having already failed. In their initial asylum claim, and at the same asylum claim, and at the same select committee hearing, the Bishop of Chelmsford actually. Said subsequently that she doesn't have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsequently that she doesn't have. A problem with what he said about the. Truth of this issue. He further tells me. That a number of Church of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

England clerics have contacted. Him. To say that what he observed in Darlington is happening across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Darlington is happening across the country, in. Their parishes. To they say that they are too afraid to speak out because of the treatment they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are likely to get. From Church of England bishops with very distinct political. Views. And they tell him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they tell him. It's happening constantly. Asylum seekers who failed on their first application, suddenly asking for baptism as a way to overturn the result. My Lords, I'm aware that many right reverend aware that many right reverend prelates in your Lordships' House have questioned the veracity of these reports and anecdotes, and I these reports and anecdotes, and I agree with them that we can't make policy on a matter of great importance, based on the testimony importance, based on the testimony of one bishop.

And that's why I ask that the government looks again at its processes and take steps to its processes and take steps to collect detailed data that can be used for robust scrutiny. I beg to move both amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move both amendments. Amendment proposed article 48. Insert the following. New clause. Annual report grants of asylum

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Annual report grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds as printed on the master list. Let's have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let's have. A query. I wonder if the. noble Baroness McLean would confirm.
20:49
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Portrait The Lord Bishop of London (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

confirm. That Matthew Firth. Is not a bishop of the Church of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

England. My Lords, it is my understanding that he is an Anglican bishop, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he is an Anglican bishop, but I will. Obviously let. Him speak for himself on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

matter. My Lords, I rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Resist amendment 79. This amendment, and the other amendment. 79, in the next group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

79, in the next group. Are. Both motivated by reports. That asylum seekers are choosing to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Convert to Christianity. Upon arrival into the UK. In order. To be able to support their.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be able to support their. Claims for asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Amendment of religious persecution. Amendment 9079 is of deep concern and I will address this in the next group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

address this in the next group. With regard to amendment 79. I have no objection in. Principle to. This data. Being collected, apart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being collected, apart. From the fact. That. Both it. And 79. Are motivated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Both it. And 79. Are motivated. By a desire to make further. Issue an issue. Something that is in fact not an issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is in fact not an issue. this. House has examined the question of faith based asylum claims.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of faith based asylum claims. Under the previous government. The Right. Reverend, the Bishop. Of. Chelmsford. Did give evidence. To the Home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Affairs Select. Committee in the other. Place on this very topic. As you have heard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As you have heard. Note, the Noble. Lords will recall that. The. Right Reverend. Prelate Bishop of Sheffield. Referenced her contributions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Referenced her contributions. In a recent supplementary question when. Addressing claims of the use of. The Anglican churches. As I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I. Quote. A conveyor belt. For an industry of asylum. Baptism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble. Lords will. Be aware. That not only did. The Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Committee. Find no evidence of any abuse. Of asylum system. Through through. Forced conversions, but there. Was no subsequent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was no subsequent. Publication. Report or summary regarding this claim. From our. Previous discussions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Previous discussions. With the Home Office on this issue. We do not believe that the data. Spoken of in amendment 79.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spoken of in amendment 79. Can easily be extracted. It seems to me that there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seems to me that there. solved. In our asylum system. Before addressing this data. In. This data point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This data point. Thank you. My Lords. I want to just draw
20:51
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I want to just draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here, of been represented to us here, of course, which of course, all the evidence seems to be addressed to the the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England and those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom. Of course, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us. So, first of all, debating an English only issue in a bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom, is is worrying some in its in its first instance, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns.

The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. And the noble Lord, the Minister, told us in earlier debate on this matter that there is no judgement taken on, on, on cohorts of people, but it is solely on the merits of a case and the objective the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return.

Now, while transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision making. We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help. The victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. So, based on the principles of individual justice and effective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resource management, we reject these amendments. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Maclean of Redditch for amendment 79 C and 79 D, both amendments in my view, are proportionate and they are consistent with the principles that
20:54
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
consistent with the principles that underpin this bill, namely, that our asylum and immigration system should be firm, fair and founded on clear evidence. There's a common theme that has run through a number of amendments tabled by these benches on this bill, and that is transparency. If we're to build and sustain confidence in how this country handles claims for asylum and particularly those made on sensitive grounds such as modern slavery or religious persecution, then we must ensure that the facts are available and that Parliament can see those facts clearly set out without good data, good policy is impossible.

Turning to amendments 79 C, which requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how many individuals identified through the National Referral Mechanism as victims of modern slavery go on to receive asylum or refugee status. This is a vital area of public concern, the link between the asylum system and modern slavery referrals has grown significantly in recent years, and questions have been raised about whether that system is being exploited by those seeking to frustrate legitimate removal or immigration control processes.

An annual report, as proposed, would shine a light on the outcome of modern slavery. Referrals. Who is granted asylum on what grounds and through which routes they arrived. It's about evidence based policy making and I believe it would strengthen, not weaken, our collective efforts against the crime of slavery. Amendment 79, my Lords, addresses another area that demands careful scrutiny asylum claims based on religion, and in particular, cases where an individual has converted to a new faith after arrival in the United Kingdom.

This is again a matter that touches upon deeply held convictions and our tradition of religious liberty. But it is also an area where the integrity of the system must be beyond reproach. There have been legitimate concerns expressed both in this House and beyond, about the authenticity of some claimed conversions. For example, those said to have been made to Christianity and the consistency of decision making in those cases. And I simply would suggest that we cannot be squeamish about addressing this.

And my noble friend has asked several written questions in relation to this matter. It is an issue which needs to be dealt with. But the amendment from my noble friend is itself agnostic on the issue. It doesn't preclude asylum claims being granted on the basis of religion or religious conversion, nor does it state that all such claims should be declined. It doesn't prejudge any claim. It doesn't seek to cast doubt upon anyone's faith. What it does is require the Home Office to publish each year a factual report on how many asylum claims were granted on religious grounds.

Crucially, how many of those cases involve the conversion that took place after arrival in the UK? And the data will be broken down by religion and laid before Parliament. That, my Lords, is transparency in action. It wouldn't alter a single individual's right to claim asylum. It wouldn't change the grounds upon which such claims are assessed. But it would give Parliament and the public the information necessary to scrutinise and understand how such claims are being made and determined, and it would give reassurance to genuine converts and to faith communities who support them that the system operates fairly and consistently.

The amendments are about ensuring that government policy is grounded in evidence, and that Parliament can fulfil its duty of oversight.
20:57
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Maclean of Redditch for tabling the amendments before us. They've certainly begun a short debate. I regret to inform that I won't be able to accept the amendments, and I hope that she can withdraw them, but I will give her an explanation as to why the amendments seek the government to publish two annual reports. 79 c would commit the government to an annual report on asylum and refugee grants for those identified in the National Referral Mechanism as victims of modern slavery, and 79 d would provide for an annual report on the cohort of asylum seekers on how many were granted asylum based on their religion or religious conversion.

I think the important point, I think this has been recognised across the House is that every asylum claim is assessed on a case by case basis. Each claimant is given the opportunity to explain their reasons for seeking protection in the UK through an asylum interview. And whilst the individual records are of course maintained for each claim, recording the reasons for a grant of asylum, in total we do not publish statistics which set out all of the reasons individuals fear persecution. Now the Home Office does publish a significant amount of data on a range of different aspects of the asylum system, but we're not doing it in the way in which the noble Lady is asking for us today.

I take very strongly the comments from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, on the view of herself and other members of the church on the issue of religious persecution, faith and belief, or indeed lack of faith and belief can be a very complex matter, just like the pride we have in providing protection for those who need it, we should pride ourselves in the religious freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom. I want to continue protecting those who need it, particularly when they face persecution for having a belief that differs from the faith they're expected or indeed forced to have.

Now, the noble Lady McLean, of Redditch, wishes the annual report to include the number of those who changed their religion after arriving in the UK. Now, again, there's nothing intrinsically wrong about changing your religion when you arrive in the UK, those matters will be explored by the individual claim when they're presented by a claimant and as part of the process, decision makers must take into consideration the claimant's motivation and the motivation for both adopting the new faith to test that motivation, and also those who renounced their previous faith and to test that motivation.

Officials at the Home Office have worked with stakeholders and again, including the church, to ensure asylum seekers based on religious persecution are well considered and that those in genuine need are supported and that there are no loopholes claiming asylum in this country. I also do take the noble Lord German point as a resident of Wales myself, that the Church of England is is one aspect of Christian religion, and there may be others, indeed other religions as a whole, where persecution results in change that could be due to marriage, it could be due to personal beliefs, it could be due to a whole range of reasons.

They will be tested in the individual interview. Amendment 79 C would require data drawn from different data sets across the Home Office to be produced, showing asylum and refugee grants for those identified as victims of modern slavery. Now, again, I understand genuinely because we've discussed this in questions and in debate, the intention behind the amendment. But there is a view which I think is important to put on record, that the quarterly national referral mechanism, statistics on victim identification, and the quarterly immigration statistics provide more than enough insight into the outputs of their respective systems.

Now, I will obviously keep under constant review published data, but I believe that imposing the duty, as in the amendment proposed today, would produce a new annual report which would not be proportionate or measured at this time. The published quarterly immigration statistics demonstrate that overall grant rates can vary for a number of reasons, including the mix of nationalities claiming asylum and the protection needs of those who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. So my suggestion back to the noble Lady is that that information is available.

I hope she's also listened to the very important comments of the right reverend Prelate, who not only holds the petition now in the church, but is going to hold it even more senior position, for which I congratulate her in very short order. And I hope on the back of those comments, the noble Lady is able to withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I thank the Minister very much for his comments and for his consideration of the and for his consideration of the points that I've raised. And I wish to thank other noble Lords who've contributed my noble friend, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his comments supporting my amendment, and the right reverend Prelate and the right reverend Prelate who's also spoken, although she's obviously opposed what I have suggested. I do agree that these are very sensitive issues and serving in the Home Office myself.

Previously, I understand how Previously, I understand how difficult practically some of this data is to collect. Nevertheless, I data is to collect. Nevertheless, I do think that we should not shy away. From demanding transparency on a matter of such importance so on a matter of such importance so that the public have confidence in this system. But nevertheless, I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 79 D. Baroness Maclean not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. Not moved. Amendment 79 e Baroness Maclean. My Lords, this Baroness Maclean. My Lords, this amendment in my name follows on from the previous group of amendments, and. It seeks to go amendments, and. It seeks to go much further. I have absolutely no doubt that the government, and probably many others in this House will not. The government will not accept this amendment and and many others will reject it out of hand. The government has already indicated already, in answer to the questions I've tabled to the Home Office that it doesn't agree with this amendment, but we have seen reports your lordships of bathtub conversions in asylum hotels.

We've seen reports of multiple asylum seekers in accommodation, such as seekers in accommodation, such as on the Bibby Stockholm, seeking to convert to Christianity, and we have seen concerns raised about these conversions to to establish whether or not they are genuine. whether or not they are genuine. And I recognise as a Christian myself that it is extremely difficult to look into a human heart. It's very difficult for anybody to say, what does a person really believe? And I also would really believe? And I also would wish to protect our reputation as a country for religious freedom.

And I would wish that we, we are a refuge for those seeking persecution from around the world. But at the same time, it is a leap considerations.
21:04
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
To. person that we have seen reported is a genuine convert to Christianity, and I do not think we can shy away from this area of debate. I will seek to return to this subject during my future work in this House. The reason why I will do so is I care deeply about the institutions of our country and our national culture, which is a Christian culture and our established church and the Church of England. And as a conservative, I believe that we must fight to protect and defend these institutions from forces and individuals that could seek to destabilise and undermine their authority.

And when I see our Christian faith being used as a fast track for subverting our British open heartedness and tolerance, I feel it's simply wrong. And I know this view is shared by the general public. I'm afraid I can find no evidence of anyone converting to Islam in order to avoid deportation or to lodge an asylum claim, perhaps a Home Office Minister in his response can correct me if it is the case. It seems to me that it's always Christianity, that it's used in this way.

And while as Christians, we are called to follow the teachings of Jesus as policy makers, we must be pragmatic and work with our knowledge of human nature, which is not perfect. There is evil in people's hearts. With humility we must recognise this and pray for forgiveness, but we must also open our eyes and be honest that incentives are strongly aligned for illegal migrants to lie and cheat. Using Christian conversion and possibly other religious conversions too. And that's why I've tabled the amendment.

I believe the first duty of government is to protect our borders, and that means not being a soft touch for abusers, but being able to show that our system is robust and discriminates between genuine and fake conversions. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause 48.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 48. printed. On the master list. My Lords. As you may imagine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As you may imagine. I have deep concerns about amendment 79, the World Watch List
21:07
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Portrait The Lord Bishop of London (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 79, the World Watch List 2025, produced by Open Doors, found. That. Over 380.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Million Christians worldwide were subject to. High levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith last year, and just under 4500 were killed for faith related reasons. The data on the persecution of Christians makes it clear that people are willing, and indeed do, die for their Christian faith. Today, we should tread extremely carefully when legislating on such profound matters. What is more, conversion to the Christian faith is, for most, not like switching, flicking a switch.

It is a process which may take years. It is, for many Christians not possible to point to a day or hour when they committed their lives to Jesus Christ. In fact, John Wesley had called it being strangely warmed. A public declaration of faith is an important moment in that process. But if that declaration may cost you your life or the lives of those that you love, then a person may think very carefully about when and where they make it. What better evidence in many ways, or fear of religious persecution in a country of origin, than that a person might wait until they were in the UK to publicly declare their faith? Amendment 79 does not recognise this context.

It is also deeply problematic in its denial of the freedom of religion of people living in this country. I need hardly to remind the noble Lords of the horrors which promoted the creation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I say, as I said in the previous groupings, in relation to amendment 79, under the previous government, the Home Affairs Select Committee did look at the question of fake religious conversions to support asylum claims.

The Right Reverend Claire Lake, the Bishop of Chelmsford, gave evidence to the committee. Not only did the Home Office fail to produce evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through fake conversions, but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary of the committee's findings at all, which speaks for itself. I imagine that there are some asylum seekers who might well believe that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that when some politicians keep implying that that is the case.

Clergy are not naive. We train them to do that. We train them to do this, to discern the best they can through teaching, through discussion, through reflection, observation and prayer. Whether a person, whoever they are, is ready for a public confession of faith through baptism. As the noble Baroness, the McLean said, no one can see into the heart of another person that remains between God and that person alone. It is not the job of clergy to assess asylum claims.

The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case does not determine the outcome of a claim. In January, the Church of England published guidance document for clergy supporting asylum seekers. I understand that the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have also published similar materials. I have to say that I am proud that the church into which I am called to serve welcomes, indeed embraces any and all who express a genuine, considered and informed decision to follow Jesus Christ.

Churches ought not to feel anxious about supporting an baptising asylum seekers, if to their best knowledge, the clergy are confident that there is a sincere desire for conversion, a commitment to Jesus Christ, and to discipleship. We live in a world in which people regularly die for their Christian faith, and when many hide their Christian faith for fear of persecution. Thus, it remains just as important now as it ever has been to offer protection, sanctuary and peace to all those who exercise their right to freedom of belief on our shores.

Amendment 79 presents a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerning threat to this. My Lords, I must start once more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I must start once more with what it may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble
21:11
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Maclean when she talked about safeguarding this country's. Conditions and and types of sorts of life living standards that we have. And in so doing, she said. And the established church. Now, I have to say it once more that the established church is the established Church of England in Wales. It's disestablished Church in Wales, which is the, the and and the Episcopalian Church of Scotland and so on. So it is if we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we're very diverse, we're diverse in religion, we're diverse across nationalities, across language and all sorts of other ways as well.

And I think as a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes. So this amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection space, solely on the timing of a person's religious conversion. The long established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on its merits. Amendment 79 mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic which is post-arrival. Religious conversion. Rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual upon return.

So we must focus ourselves on this matter. Adopting such a provision also places the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the Refugee Convention. The Refugee Convention is built on core principles, including non penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief established after arrival in this country, and that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement, we must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation, an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.

We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary. Here. And for those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands. We look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving rise to them developed.
21:15
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, once again thank my noble friend Baroness Maclean of Redditch for this amendment, which, as she said, addresses the interpretation of the Refugee Convention in cases where an individual claims asylum on the grounds of religious persecution following a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. And the amendment makes clear in statute the refugee status should not be granted solely on the basis of a claimed religious conversion that occurred after a person has entered the United Kingdom, and again, the purpose of this amendment is not to question the sincerity of anyone's personal faith, nor to diminish the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Rather, it seeks to uphold the integrity of our asylum framework and ensure that the Refugee Convention is applied, as originally intended, to those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, not to those who have created new grounds for asylum only after arrival here. This is a matter, my Lords of fairness and of public confidence, and it is no secret that concerns have been raised both within this House and among the wider public, about individuals who, having exhausted other immigration routes, subsequently claim asylum on the basis of a newly professed faith.

And I pose a question to the noble Lord, the Minister, if he doesn't accept the amendment, how does how does the government address this issue? We cannot and should not allow the generosity of the asylum system to be manipulated. And by clarifying the interpretation of the Refugee Convention in this specific context, guidance would be provided to decision makers and reduce opportunistic claims, and at the same time, it would not prevent genuine converts from seeking other, seeking other appropriate forms of protection, or leave to remain on humanitarian grounds.

It simply ensures the definition of refugee is applied as intended. The Refugee Convention, admirable as it is, was drafted in a very different age and has sometimes been stretched beyond what its draughters could have envisaged. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the law reflects contemporary realities, including including the growing challenge of fraudulent or opportunistic claims, whilst at the same time maintaining our proud record of offering sanctuary to those in genuine need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful again to the noble Baroness Maclean of Redditch for her amendments. Just want to start
21:17
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
her amendments. Just want to start by saying I think the Right Reverend, the Bishop of London, made a very compelling case in argument against the amendment, and I thank her for her support, because I, too, will be not supporting the amendment. And again, I also say to the noble Lord German that he is well, I took the words blanket refusal, and that is really the important point, I think, in this amendment as well. The noble Lady's amendment would mean that there was a blanket refusal for anybody who claimed status on the grounds of religious persecution, even if the person converted to a new religion after they arrived in the UK.

That means that there are potentially people who would arrive in the UK and are in the UK who did not fear persecution when they left their country, but who may well have found religious faith on arrival in the United Kingdom through a range of routes, and therefore would then not have that as an ability to claim persecution for return to their country. That does not seem to me fair. The 1951 Refugee Convention applies the definition regardless of where the fear of persecution arises.

It includes situations where fear develops after arrival in the host country, in which case the amendment from the noble law Baroness McLean would apply. So. But I also take very strongly what the noble Lord German said about the independence, essentially, of decision makers. Decision makers will consider claims involving religious conversion. They will fully explore the motivation of that conversion. They will explore what that means in a person's life. They will explore whether the conversion took place in the UK. And it's also reasonable, I think, to even taking the Right Reverend prelates comments to ask for some evidence of that conversion.

And as the Right Reverend prelate said. Ministers in the Church of England are not going to take every conversion on the face of that conversion. They have a very strong process to go through to ensure that someone is welcomed into the faith. And in cases of religious conversion, conversion alone, dare I say, does not even guarantee refugee status because ultimately an individual could convert, can say that they are converting and that's the reason they should stay. But the decision maker will look at the risk of return to the person's country of origin, and whether that has an implication on the credibility of the religious conversion based on the evidence before it.

Now, conversions may be rejected as not genuine or accepted as genuine, but even where a conversion is accepted as genuine, there has to be some form of detailed examination of an individual's circumstances and the situation of the person's country of origin, and determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of persecution. The assessment cannot be disregarded on the basis of actions taken after arrival in the UK, even where there is suspicion or evidence that such actions were taken in bad faith to generate or strengthen an asylum claim.

Quite frankly, every claim must be judged on its merits, according to the rule of law and our international obligations. Decision makers scrutinise the timing of conversion, the consistency with prior beliefs and behaviour. A finding of a person acting in bad faith can be relevant to the person's credibility, and whether they will face risk on return to their country of origin. And may I also just say that you know this? Obviously, if adopted, the amendment today, which I can't accept, it would reduce the volume of grants and potential bad faith claims, but it would also breach our 1951 Refugee Convention status with which was put in place after a conflict which demanded a significant number of refugees.

And I therefore, I would say that there is, I hope, sufficient guidance in place for Home Office decision makers to make a judgement on the basis of the claim, and that the noble Ladies Amendment would be a difficult one and would end up with individuals who have a genuine conversion being returned to their country of origin to maybe face further persecution, which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is not just a matter of chiding or ostracising. It can lead to death because of the religious faith.

So I can't accept the amendment and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope the noble Lady will withdraw it. My Lords, may I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I thank the Minister very much for listening to my comments and responding in such my comments and responding in such detail. I do agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should tread very carefully with this issue, and I want to thank her for issue, and I want to thank her for her also her detailed observations, and I welcome what she says about the work that she does with the clergy in relation to baptism of asylum seekers and conversion to asylum seekers and conversion to the Christian faith.

I want to reassure the Lord German that I understand that there are vast understand that there are vast numbers of denominations in the Christian church, and my comments should be interpreted interpreted should be interpreted interpreted as meaning the Christian faith and its various denominations, of which I am not an expert. Many others are. I am not an expert. Many others are. But of course we are talking about Christian baptism. That can be the Church of England. It can be many other denominations, including, I'm sure, churches in Wales where he lives.

As my noble friend Lord lives. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel has set out, this is a question of fairness and this is a question of fairness and the fact that there is no evidence of abuse doesn't, I think, reassure those of us in this House who are concerned about this issue. And I did when I was listening to the Minister, he did he did mention that there is it is possible that bad faith claims exist within the system.

And I would say to him that we can't find evidence of something if the government isn't going to look for it. And it has also rejected my amendments earlier. So as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I would like to return to this work and this issue and this topic further in my contributions to this House. And I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could agree to meet with me and his officials to discuss this further, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your lordships. Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is by. Leave withdrawn. Amendment 79. Baroness Coussins not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 80 Lord Alton. Of Liverpool. Not moved in clause 81,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment clause 62, amendment 81 Lord Hanson of Flint. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

81 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion. Will say. Content the contrary not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 82 Lord Cameron of Lochiel not 82 Lord Cameron of Lochiel not moved. Amendment 83 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that amendment 83 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. Amendment 84 Lord Cameron of Lochiel not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Amendment 85 Lord German. Not moved. Amendment 86. Lord Cameron of Lochiel not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. My Lords, that concludes the report. Stage of. The Border. Security, Asylum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security, Asylum. And Immigration Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. House do now adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the UK
-

21:33
14:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the UK
-

21:33
14:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the UK
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 11 House of Lords - 11 November
21:51
14:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the UK
-

22:01
14:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the UK
-

22:01
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page