Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Harper

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Harper

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to go over points that have already been made and which were made in Committee at greater length. However, I think it notable that work done by lawyers cannot, in the Government’s mind, be explicitly referred to. Perhaps I am particularly influenced by the work the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is doing on the rule of law, or maybe not.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that a lawyer should not set out—I am paraphrasing—to support a criminal activity by his client. I do not think things are that black and white. Everyone is entitled to a defence. With items such as the documents and information referred to in Clause 16, the client is entitled to have the reason for having those argued, or to argue whether they fall within Clause 16(1). It is a case of blame the lawyers again—“let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is a point of considerable principle to me that the rule of law should be upheld, and that includes citizens being entitled to be supported by lawyers. However, I beg leave to withdraw—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble Baroness implied that I am being pejorative about lawyers; I am not. If lawyers are doing what they are supposed to do, there is no problem at all. This clause specifically states that the person would be committing an offence only if they were collecting the information or using it in order to prepare for an offence. Somebody doing legitimate legal activity is not committing an offence. I strongly support the rule of law and lawyers doing legal work, just not lawyers who think their job is to facilitate immigration crime. I think the clause is therefore very well drafted.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords that concluding speeches to press or withdraw an amendment should be brief and should not be subject to intervention. That is a normal courtesy of the House, according to the Companion.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Harper

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I did two years of Roman law, which did not stick, but the mens rea in criminal law did stick. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I are very much on the same page here. He did not quote the rather neat line from his committee’s report: that it considers that the

“precursor offences would benefit from greater circumscription”.

I thought that was very circumspect, and rather typical of the careful language our Select Committees use.

My Amendments 32, 42 and 53 are, if you like, more instinctive and a bit more amateur; the noble Lord’s are technically better, and I am happy to support them. My amendments go to the words “suspects” and “suspicion” in Clauses 13, 14 and 16. That is a very low threshold, with the burden being on the person charged to show beyond all reasonable doubt that they had a reasonable excuse. I looked up the definition, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines to “suspect” as to

“imagine … on slight or no evidence”,

and

“to believe or fancy to be guilty … with insufficient proof or knowledge”.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the first day in Committee, working from a superseded group of amendments—although it was not his fault—described all the amendments in the group, which included these, as being “well meaning”. I choose to take that as a compliment, although I am not sure that it was intended quite directly as one. He said that they would

“significantly change the burden of proof in respect of evidence”.—[Official Report, 26/6/2025; col. 447.]

Exactly, and that is the point. These are criminal offences with substantial penalties, and that should require a high burden of proof. I am very uneasy that, in the circumstances, a term that I could describe as casual does not require much from the prosecution. We will come to the content later, but I will raise this point whatever the content of the offence.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and have a great deal of respect for the side of the argument he is coming from. But the piece missing from his argument, and from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is the concept of deterrence.

What the Government are trying to do, as far as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I have got this wrong—is to put in place a framework that actually stops the organised criminal groups, as well as those who pay them and those who help facilitate that immigration crime. The intention is to stop them doing these things in the first place, and there is a balance to strike between the criminal law regime you put in place and the penalties. It needs to be sufficiently tough that you actually deter people in the first place.

The Joint Committee’s report says that the

“scope is broad, the thresholds are low, and the penalties are high”.

That is correct, but that is because the Government are trying, I think—and if so, I support them—to set those penalties so that people are deterred from trying to cross the channel. Let us remind ourselves that they are doing so from a safe country. They are not fleeing persecution in France; they are already in a safe European country. They may have been fleeing persecution in the country from which they originally came, but they are now in a safe European country. Of course, we also know that a lot of the people undertaking these journeys are not fleeing persecution at all; they are travelling, perfectly understandably, for economic reasons, but those are not reasons we should allow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Is it not sensible to look at it from the point of view of the person who may be undertaking the action? If there is to be deterrence, you have to look at it from that point of view. Whatever your objective, you have to look at it from the point of view of the person who may be affected; otherwise, you cannot assess whether there is a deterrent effect. Does the noble Lord think that people who reach the northern shores of Europe are as aware of the detail of legislation as his argument would require them to be?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I shall address both the points the noble Baroness has made. On the first, in one sense I am very much looking at it from the point of view of the participants. I want them to be clear that carrying out that particular set of actions would indeed be an offence with a significant penalty, because I want them to then conclude that they do not want to do that and do not want to cross the channel to the United Kingdom from the safe country in which they currently reside. That is the point of the legislation.

On the second point, I am clear, having had some experience of running the immigration regime, and particularly of the development of technology, that the noble Baroness will find that most of the people concerned have mobile telephones and are very well aware of what is going on. There are many groups out there that provide detailed information to migrants about the law and those who can facilitate their being smuggled into the United Kingdom. They are very well aware of changes we make and of the legal position. We were very well aware—I am saying this only because it has just occurred to me—that in the run-up to the election, lots of communications were being made with people in northern France about the likely outcome of that election and whether they should stay put or make the crossing to the United Kingdom. They are very well aware of what is going on, and that is very relevant.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble Lord makes half a good point. I agree with him on people who are victims of modern slavery. I think my noble friend Lady May will speak to some amendments on that in later groups.

I am sorry if this disappoints noble Lords, but the fact that the example in the report was given by Liberty does not strengthen the case, in my humble opinion, but somewhat lessens it. When I was Immigration Minister, Liberty spent most of its time trying to undermine our immigration legislation and argued for not protecting our borders. It failed to understand, importantly, that if the British public do not think that we have a robust immigration and asylum system then they will become increasingly intolerant of protecting people whom I believe should be protected. You command wide public support for people genuinely fleeing persecution, for whom we should provide refuge, by being clear that we have the ability to stop those who are not entitled to that protection coming to our country and making a mockery of our system. Organisations in favour of our looking after genuine asylum seekers and people who would meet the test of being a refugee should sometimes reflect that being uncritical, as I am afraid many of them are, about those people attempting to come to the United Kingdom damages the public’s view and our ability to have a system that genuinely helps those who need it, as everyone then gets swept up because the system is not working.

Finally, I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness—I am very happy to take an intervention if I have it wrong—but, on her amendments probing the removal of the defence, she said that she wanted the prosecution to have to make the argument. She said that the current drafting means that people would have to prove their defence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not my understanding of how this works. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of an offence and the legislation, as drafted, provides that there are defences that people can offer as to why they may have conducted themselves in a certain way. Unless I have misunderstood something very badly, that does not require the person to prove their defence beyond a reasonable doubt—all they have to do is, in setting out the defence, raise at least a reasonable doubt with the court that they were not guilty of the offence. That seems the right place to have the test in our criminal justice system. As currently drafted, the legislation does not have the effect that she thinks it does.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We debated the reverse burden of proof on the first day in Committee. I certainly do not take it from any of the briefings I have had, or from previous debates on the reverse burden of proof in other Bills, that it is as the noble Lord described it. As I understand it, you are charged and then you have to put forward a defence if you believe you have a reasonable excuse—which you have if there is sufficient evidence of the matter to raise an issue and the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore throws the “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” on to the defence. Presumably the CPS, in the usual way, would have to believe that the public interest test is met and so on, but it upends the normal way that we do things.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for that explanation. As I explained to the Committee, I could not be here on the first day but I have read through the debate and I am afraid I did not agree with that then either. I just do not buy that that is what this does. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of the offence. In the legislation as drafted by the Government, somebody can offer a defence and all they have to do for that defence to be successful is create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. That does not reverse the burden of proof at all.

To pick up on the point in the amendment about changing “knows or suspects” to “intends that, or is reckless”, if you know or suspect something untoward is going to take place, that is a reasonably decent idea that someone should not really be doing it. If I know or suspect someone is going to commit crime, it is probably not very wise if I provide them with equipment that would enable them to commit that crime. I do not really see why I would want that test to be much higher. Let us remember that we are not trying to criminalise people who are thinking about doing this; we are trying to say to them, “If you do this, you will be committing a criminal offence and we’d like you not to do it”. That is the purpose of this. Ministers would be delighted if they did not have to prosecute anybody—certainly none of the people contemplating crossing the channel. They want to put in place a deterrent regime that stops them doing it. That is the objective of the legislation. Weakening it would just remove that deterrent effect and we would get back to the position in which we do not have control of our borders, significant numbers of people cross the channel and undertake unsafe journeys, and the British people have no confidence in our immigration and asylum system, which would damage it for the legitimate refugees for whom we want to provide proper protection. We can only do that if there is a system that commands public confidence.

If I have understood what the Government intend to do, I respectfully suggest that the Committee should not support the amendments tabled by noble Lord and noble Baroness. We should stick with the wording in the Bill.