Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I knew it would be only a matter of time before the debate turned to the European Union. However, I offer some support on this amendment, which seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement on co-operation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol. I do so not out of any dogmatic enthusiasm for greater institutional integration with the European Union, but because it touches on something far more important—that the Government should have a duty to come before Parliament and the British people and show us the work they have been doing to smash the gangs.

We have all these questions already—how many gangs have been dismantled, how many people smugglers have been arrested and what impact that has had on the scale of the crossings—so, once this Bill comes into force, the pressure on the Government to answer them will be even greater. To that end, we think the requirement to report these numbers should be set out in law. This amendment speaks to earlier provisions tabled in our name in which we called for greater transparency about enforcement outcomes. If the Government are serious about stopping the boats, breaking the business model and restoring control, they should welcome the opportunity to show Parliament the evidence.

However, I strike a note of caution. While co-operation with Europol is undoubtedly important, it must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. This Bill cannot be a backdoor to deeper alignment for its own sake. What matters is whether the relationship delivers results and helps our agencies do their job more effectively. If it does, let us support it; if it does not or if resources would be better deployed elsewhere, we must retain the flexibility to make those choices. I support the principle behind the amendment: let us have the data, see the progress and ensure that decisions about operational co-operation are rooted in the fight against serious crime and not some broader desire to turn back the clock on Brexit. That is the balanced and pragmatic path forward.

The same principle of operational demand underpins our opposition to Amendment 101. We have spoken a lot about giving our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, but we cannot tie their hands. With respect to the noble Baroness, I believe that our authorities can be trusted to determine whether a joint task force with Europol is necessary and I do not think that compelling them to do this in law is particularly sensible.

Our concerns are much the same with Amendment 206. While I am sure that it is well intentioned, I will speak against it. However worthy its stated aim, it rests on a flawed premise: that this Chamber, and individual Members, should be in the business of directing operational law enforcement resources from the Floor of Parliament. Of course we expect the Government to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are adequately resourced. That is a basic responsibility. What I find more difficult to accept is the idea that we should begin legislating where those resources must go, as if we are better placed than the professionals to determine strategic priorities, operational partnerships or the most effective deployment of personnel and technology. Respectfully, what qualifies the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to decide by statute how the National Crime Agency or our police forces should engage with Europol? Are we to micromanage from your Lordships’ House the balance between domestic enforcement and international co-operation? I do not believe those on the front line will thank us for it.

We should not forget that enforcement against illegal migration and human trafficking is a complex, fast-evolving challenge. It requires flexibility, responsiveness and operational freedom, not rigid legal mandates handed down from Westminster. If law enforcement agencies judge that Europol operations offer the best return on effort and resources, then they will and should participate. But if priorities shift or if intelligence and tactical realities require a different focus, they must be free to act accordingly.

This is a debate not about whether we support the fight against people smuggling—we all do—but about whether we think Parliament should start signing away operational discretion and tying the hands of those we rely on to deliver results. That is not a responsible use of legislative power. We need to be guided by practical application, not political aspiration. Let the experts lead and let Government support them in doing so, not box them in. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

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

My Lords, I have a confession to make—and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I make it. As a Member of Parliament, I spent a lot of the period between 2016 and 2019 arguing for a close relationship with Europol when we were agreeing the Brexit referendum and agreements. I put a lot of pressure on the then Prime Minister and Home Secretary to ensure that they valued Europol and our close co-operation with it. I was disappointed in the outcome of the settlements achieved on that relationship. I therefore start from the basis that I believe that the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, are important. The approach of the current Government since 2024 has been to ensure that we encourage and engage in co-operation with Europol and other agencies to achieve the objectives that we have set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Those figures are extremely impressive—thank goodness for that—but can the Minister explain why over 21,000 people are arriving in the UK on boats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that this is a complex challenge and that the Government are trying to undertake a range of measures to address it. He will also know—we will return to this in more detail later—that, with the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme, we have been able both to process more applications on asylum and to remove people from hotels and shut more hotels. We have also been able to provide greater investment in the sort of co-operation that the Border Security Commander will undertake shortly, and I believe that continued pressure will be placed on that issue. The noble Lord knows that it is a difficult challenge—I am not denying that—but we have a duty to disrupt, and that disruption involves close co-operation with Europol.

I get the sense—I mean this in the nicest possible way—that these are probing amendments to get a view from the Government on the issues around Europol; all three press the Government on where we are with that. The noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, have challenged the drafting and objectives of the relevant clauses. I will address the first two amendments as probing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord German, which seek to determine what we are doing with Europol. I accept those challenges and will respond to them.

The Border Security Commander—the legal framework for such a role is in the early clauses of the Bill—will work with a range of international bodies, including Europol, to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, recognising that an international solution is required for the current international, cross-border set of challenges. The recent Organised Immigration Crime Summit brought together over 40 countries and law enforcement bodies, including Europol to unite behind a new approach to dismantle people-smuggling gangs and to deliver on the people’s priorities for a securer border. The amendments are pressing us to address that.

First, there is the argument for an annual report to Parliament. Under the Bill, the Border Security Commander has to provide an annual report to Parliament and his work is very closely linked to that of Europol. We have a very strong relationship with Europol currently and a significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The Home Office will continue to work with Europol to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, and the Border Security Commander has a key role in Europol being one of the agencies through which our objectives are being set.

To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord German, on joint working with Europol, we have 20 officers embedded as liaison officers in Europol headquarters, with teams across the European community. It would be challenging, and perhaps—dare I say—inappropriate to set statutory requirements that would seek to establish joint taskforce operations when these are currently operational decisions.

Those operational decisions have the full support of government to work closely with Europol to help with data, criminal investigations and to ensure that we work in partnership. That is vital, given that many of the criminal gangs are operating in the European Community—in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. That is why the Border Security Commander, as well as working closely with Europol, has established and worked with the Calais Group, its member states being France, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom, looking at close co-operation in those areas.

We are ensuring that we have adequate resources for law-enforcement agencies to enhance participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. There is regular interaction with Europol, and the commander is already providing strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats to UK border security, protecting the UK border and going after the people-smuggling gangs. We believe that the legislation strikes that operational balance but also ensures that law enforcement and the UK intelligence community are supportive of the commander’s approach. By establishing that clear direction and leadership, we are creating a strong, cohesive system to boost the activities of Europol as a whole.

There is a very strong operational relationship with Europol, led by the National Crime Agency. The director-general of the National Crime Agency regularly meets with his counterpart, Catherine De Bolle, to discuss relevant matters. The commander himself has engaged heavily with law enforcement since being appointed. We have doubled our presence at Europol, and we hosted Interpol’s general assembly in Glasgow in November 2024. We have also increased the number of embeds from the National Crime Agency in European organisations such as Europol.

On an operational and strategic level, it is in the interests of both Europol—the European Community—and the United Kingdom to have that close co-operation. That is why in the period post the Brexit referendum, I and others argued for that strong relationship: because it was important. As the noble Baroness said herself, a UK citizen, Rob Wainwright, was the leader of Europol when we were in the European Community.

I hope that there is not a sliver of difference between us. However, going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, the amendments demand an annual report and taskforce co-operation, with us determining a third-party taskforce to be co-operated with. They also demand areas of resource—which we are dealing with, without the attack on operational independence that that approach may involve.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for the explanation he has given so far, which I think indicates a surprising level of progress, given where we started from with the agreement that preceded this. The Minister has kindly told us that we have officers embedded in The Hague. Does Europol have similar officers embedded in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is probably best if I reflect on that, because although I know who is embedded in Europol, I do not know offhand, unless I can find some inspiration in the next few seconds—I fear that I may have to check. I say that simply because this Minister and this Government are responsible for National Crime Agency liaison; we are not responsible for the Europol aspect of liaison with us. Rather than give the noble Lord an unhelpful answer, if he will allow me I will reflect on that in due course and give him a specific answer in writing, post this very helpful set of amendments, which I still hope will not be pressed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that response. The tone and approach go very much in the direction and spirit of the amendments, even if their drafting is not entirely fit, in the Minister’s mind. He is right that they were designed to illustrate the very welcome change of approach of the current Government, who regard co-operation with Europol—and, indeed, with the EU generally—as important.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that we must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. I do not think you could find anything in the drafting of the amendments which is not operational. To be honest, I take slight exception to any suggestion that they are driven by ideological nostalgia. If there is any ideology, it is coming from those on the Opposition Benches, who are still displaying an allergy to the European Union.

I have the pleasure of serving on the European Affairs Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We are going to have some interesting discussions when we finalise our report on the reset. He referred to the leads from the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council giving evidence to us a few months ago. I looked it up while he was speaking, and they referred to the more cumbersome, clunky and process-heavy post-Brexit arrangements. They were engaged in mitigation, so they were making the best—I am now using words they did not use—of a not great job. I am afraid that what is coming from the Benches to my right is a prejudice against working with the European Union.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

There are all kinds of things we can aspire to. Unfortunately, the arrangements the noble Lord’s party negotiated have certain constraints in terms of the legal operation of the European Union, and he knows that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am sorry to disturb the noble Baroness’s flow, but I want to place on record, in answer to the question raised by Members, that there are no Europol embeds in the UK. There is a Europol liaison unit, which is staffed entirely by UK police officers. I hope that is helpful.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful information.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment directly seeks to reduce that risk, keep these important documents safe and ensure that efforts to undermine our borders are both addressed and combated.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for tabling these amendments, if only because we have been able to revisit matters from the past 17 years on the benefits or otherwise of ID cards. I had the pleasure, or misfortune—delete as appropriate—to be in the Home Office in 2009 when we had the ID card rollout. I think I have said to the House before that I had ID card No. 3 at the time and had lots of biometric information taken from me. In fact, I remember travelling to Austria on my ID card instead of a passport—such was the pleasure of having that ID card.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has revisited his vote in the Commons and that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has suggested similar. However, that debate is for another day. It is not one we can revisit today, as it does not really feature in any of the amendments before us. While it provides an interesting historical perspective on the rights and wrongs of having ID cards, it is the amendment before us from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, that addresses biometric information, and, if I may, I will focus on that.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I have enjoyed this exchange with the Minister on that vote. I have been trying to find out if there was any chance that I was not around during that vote; I was Minister of State in Northern Ireland at the time, and I was rather hoping that I was stuck over there. Unfortunately, because of a lack of data collection, there seems to be no way of finding out about my presence or otherwise at that time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. If he was in the building, he would have voted that particular way; otherwise, he would not have been a Northern Ireland Minister for very much longer. However, it is immaterial whether he was in the building or not; the Government he supported voted to abolish ID cards. Let me put that to one side, however; it is a debate for another day.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 102 is intended to require all foreign nationals to provide biometric information on arrival to the United Kingdom or face arrest if they fail to do so. I have no problem with biometric information and using it to secure our borders and protect the public. I have no problem with the fact that it is already a cornerstone of our immigration system, as it enables us to identify foreign nationals who are coming in and out of, or staying in, the United Kingdom. Individuals who seek to enter the UK are required to provide biometric information as part of their application for entry clearance or, indeed, an electronic travel authorisation. This allows us to do what I think the noble Lord wants us to do: to verify identity and assess suitability before arrival. We already compare applicants’ fingerprints against immigration and law enforcement databases, and that already enables us to identify those who may pose a threat in coming to United Kingdom. Requiring biometrics to be provided before a person travels to the UK also reduces the need for Border Force officers to deal with people who pose a threat on arrival.

Where a person arrives in the UK without the necessary entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, we already have existing powers to capture their biometric information, and we can use reasonable force where necessary to do so. We already check biometrics at the UK borders, using e-gates that can match facial images to images contained in passports. For visa holders, we check their fingerprints at the primary control desks. Let me remind the Committee that the Government remain vigilant in their duty to protect our borders. As recently as March 2025, we introduced new legislation which significantly enhanced our ability to collect such biometric information at the border.

I know the noble Lord has good intentions, but were this new clause to be enacted, all foreign nationals would need to provide their biometric information, including people who are normally excused. This would include people who are physically unable to enrol with their biometrics or who are exempt from immigration control, such as sovereigns or heads of state, and that is neither practical nor proportionate.

For me, this is a key issue. The noble Lord and I are both former Northern Ireland Minsters, so he will know that under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As part of the common travel area arrangements, the UK does not operate routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area, and no immigration checks are undertaken. Under his new clause, we would be unable to implement a policy of taking everyone’s biometric information as they enter Northern Ireland from Ireland without introducing a hard border. I do not think he wants that, but that is what the new clause would mean.

Turning to Amendment 149, on seizing identity documents—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

If the Minister thinks that my noble friend’s amendment has some merit, one way of dealing with this issue as the EU implements its EES checks would be to exchange biometric information with the Irish Republic so that, as people come into the common travel area, we can collect that information. Earlier, we talked about sharing information with our European partners. Dealing with the issue in this way does not require a hard border on the island of Ireland, but it hardens the border around the common travel area, which I think would be welcomed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With all due respect to the noble Lord, I was moving to the view that the amendment does not have merit; that is the nature of political life, as the noble Lord knows. Having poured that large bucket of cold water on Amendment 102, let me return to the question of Amendment 149 and seizing identity documents.

I reassure noble Lords that immigration officers already have powers to seize and retain identity documents and to require them to be produced. Under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers have a power to require persons, on examination, to produce identity and other relevant documents, which may then be retained until the person is given permission to enter the UK. It allows immigration officers to take all reasonable steps and gives them powers to search and to seize documents relating to identity. Schedule 3 to that Act extends the powers in Schedule 2 to persons liable to detention for the purpose of deportation. Furthermore, there is a power in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimant, etc.) Act 2004 whereby relevant documents in the possession of the Secretary of State may be retained where they may facilitate the removal of a person who may be liable to removal. Amendment 149 is therefore covered by existing legislation.

As for the noble Lord’s third amendment, on the issuance of biometric documents to individuals whose identity documents have been seized, again I must gently express some reservations. We already issue foreign nationals with status in the UK with biometric immigration documents in the form of an e-visa. Unlike physical documents, they cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with. We also issue asylum seekers with application registration cards that contain facial images and evidence that they have submitted a protection claim. We do not issue biometric immigration documents that confirm the holder’s status to people who have no lawful UK immigration status or an outstanding protection claim in the UK. We do not provide documentation that could be used for identification purposes, to avoid creating the impression that someone is in the UK lawfully.

Since November 2024, we have stopped issuing physical biometric cards to foreign nationals granted status in the UK. Having to issue physical biometric cards to people whose documents were seized would generate additional costs—without adding them up, there would be several million pounds’ worth. It is also important that the Committee recalls that the misuse of identity documents is a criminal offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, and the supply of equipment for the creation of false documents is similarly proscribed under the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015.

I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord. Obviously, he can return to this on Report if he wishes to, but I hope that he will withdraw his amendment, having heard my defence of the Government’s position.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but I do not agree with his position. This would have provided him with an opportunity to send a very strong signal out to all those watching these debates and following the issue of immigration very closely. There was a lot in what he said about officials having the power and how they could do this and that, and it was all tentative again. My amendments sought to ensure that they did these things. That is the only way we can get a degree of certainty. I hope that we can return to this in the future. I strongly suspect that the Government’s position on this will have to change but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam (Con)]

With respect, it is not completely different. The fact is that the Australians arranged a successful deterrent, which is what all Governments are trying to achieve. What the last Conservative Government were trying to achieve was obviously not entirely the same as the Nauru/Australian example, but it was broadly the same, and, as the noble Lord must agree, with many checks and balances to ensure that people were properly treated.

That is what the present Government are throwing away. All that effort, finance, agreement, and legislation—three Bills, I think—are being chucked aside for, in effect, nothing, because this Bill gives no deterrent factor. It is completely absent. We all agree that the gangs should be smashed, and that work can carry on side by side with any other work on a deterrent, but there is no work on a deterrent going on of the kind that the previous Government had. We need a deterrent.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Can we just nail this myth? It was not a deterrent. Between the signing of the partnership with Rwanda on 14 April 2022 and 5 July 2024 when this Government took office, 83,500 people arrived by small boats—some deterrent.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

It was never deployed as a deterrent. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, it was never put into operation. The idea that the Minister can say that it did not work is nonsense, because it was never actually tried. First, there were all the judicial reviews and additional challenges that were sustained, and then there was the general election, so it never actually happened. It is a myth to believe that it somehow did not work or that it was not a deterrent. We do not know, frankly.

The great pity about all this is that we will never know whether it would have been a deterrent. I fully confess that I do not know whether it would have acted as a deterrent or not; no one could say until we saw the effects. Indeed, in the case of Australia, it was quite a long time before people realised that this was an effective deterrent. It took about 10 years before it was fully realised that this did work and was a means of doing it, and that would likely have been the case here. A policy without a serious deterrent is not really a policy at all; that is the problem.

I am sure the Minister will say that what the Government are now doing with France has considerable potential as a means of deterring people from coming across, but that depends on relations with France. I am all in favour of having favourable relations with France. I believe that the UK and France are particularly important countries in the European context these days, and I fully commend what happened over the last couple of days—I think King Charles in particular played a blinder in bringing the countries together—but none the less, we have to look at whether this will work as a deterrent. I understand that the talks on this are going on this afternoon, and that therefore the Minister may not have much information and may be unable answer questions, but currently only 6% of people will be sent back under this scheme. It is hardly a deterrent to say that 94% of people will stay here and only 6% will be sent back.

Obviously, it is sensible to start in a small way and ramp it up as time goes on, and I am sure that the Minister will argue that, but if you have a whole gamut of people coming over and only a small proportion are returned, what sort of deterrent is that? Will it not also fall foul of the problems that the previous Government had, where any individual who is asked to go back to France immediately has recourse to a lawyer who seeks to keep them here, and maybe succeeds in that effort, and therefore the whole scheme begins to unwind in a morass of legal challenges? That is what happened to the last Government: they became bogged down in a whole series of legal challenges. That is the danger, and that is why we are becoming afraid of the ECHR. The Government have had a year to think about all this. Unless they have a clear plan that encompasses these other extraneous elements that protrude into the problems they have, there is no serious possibility of stopping the boats.

Therefore, while I understand why the Government, having decided not to go ahead with the Rwanda plan, have given themselves the resources that were devoted to Rwanda and used them in a new way to develop the Bill, they will have to go very much further if they hope to stop the boats. I am afraid that we need a much more decisive, thorough and holistic approach to this problem than that we have had so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this clause in the Bill and support the Government’s action. The rest of it was very irresponsible. Getting rid of that project, which was announced in this Chamber by the Labour Party leader at that time, was the right thing to do. It also means that we can have better standing with our international colleagues, as we have had already with the UNHCR and with the French President, who was quoted as saying that this was a way of getting a better relationship with France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for this debate on Clause 37. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for forcing them to go through it yet again. I admire their tenacity and that of those on all sides who were in this House at the time for sticking at it and making this House’s views known to the then Government during the passage of what became the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Clause 37 repeals the Act in its entirety. There is an honest disagreement between me and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Jackson, Lord Harper and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as to the objectives of the Government. I will try to explain why we have that honest political disagreement.

This Government have taken a view that the Act was expensive, ineffective, contrary to human rights legislation and not greatly meaningful in its delivery of the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, outlined clearly, including the potential for a deterrent. Between the signing of the agreement on 14 April 2022 and the formation of the new Government on 5 July, 83,500 people arrived in small boats, with 31,079 of them arriving in the year to March 2024. Deterrent or not, I do not think that individuals who were arriving were closely monitoring the passage of that Bill. They were looking at the principles behind it, and there was no deterrent there.

As to cost, I used the figure of £700 million, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked me to break it down for him. I am happy to help him with that figure: £290 million was paid to the Rwandan Government as an arrangement fee; £50 million was spent on flights, contemporaneous and in advance; £95 million was spent on detention centres; £280 million was spent on the fixed costs of the scheme. I confess that I slightly underestimated in saying £700 million, because £715 million has been spent to date. If we look at the savings that potentially are in play and not just at the £715 million that we spent, we find that we have potentially saved £100 million in upcoming annual payments to Rwanda, and a further £120 million that the UK would otherwise be liable to pay once 300 individuals had been relocated to Rwanda. That is without the additional internal staffing and operational costs in government to date.

I remind the Committee that with the £715 million, plus the further costs, four people went to Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is indicating to me that the scheme did not have time to develop, but four people went to Rwanda. If not all of them, the majority of them were volunteers. Is that a good use of taxpayers’ money? Let us not rely on me, who has a manifesto commitment on this issue, which the Government are implementing. I happened to be in Committee on Monday 8 July, when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said:

“I also happen to think that many of us opposed the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish—because it was not going to work. That is why we opposed it”.—[Official Report, 8/7/25; col. 1248.]


When I was nobbut a lad in the Labour Party and the then John Selwyn Gummer was a Minister, I never thought I would stand up in the House of Lords several years later and say, “I agree with John”, but I agree with John, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it was a load of old rubbish. That is from a Conservative Back-Bencher who has held very high office in government.

I appreciate that three former Members of Parliament in another place—four, in fact, with the noble Lord, Lord Horam—expressed a view, but it is not one that I share.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but, ultimately, this is a decision about whether or not Rwanda is a safe country. Do the UK Government believe that Rwanda is a safe country or do they agree with the Supreme Court that it is an unsafe country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Members of this House expressed strong concerns when the Bill, now an Act, was debated, particularly about the previous Government’s statements under Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. They could not say that the Bill was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government were seeking to overrule a Supreme Court judgment that the Act did not provide safeguards when Rwanda was subsequently deemed unsafe. I confess that I was not here; I was having what we call an interregnum between the House of Commons and this House. However, having watched the debate from afar, I know that that was one of the concerns that were raised. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report said it was incompatible with the ECHR and, more widely, that the policy outsourced the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention and referred to the difficulties in guaranteeing compliance with the principles of that legislation.

I think that was the reason that members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, and from the Cross Benches, and a number of Conservative Peers, rejected the proposal on several occasions, until such time as the then House of Commons fulfilled its manifesto commitment—I accept that—to bring the scheme in. The scheme was never going to work.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Before I let the noble Lord, Lord Jackson in, let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who asked how I know. I know because four people volunteered to go on the scheme. The scheme did not work and would not work. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, confirmed his view that it did not work. This is an honest disagreement between us, and that is where we are.

I will take the noble Lord’s intervention before I carry on.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am delighted that the Minister prays in aid my estimable noble friend Lord Deben. Three things are certain in life: death, taxes and the fact that he will disagree with his Front Bench.

That aside, on safety, for the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court did not express a conclusive view about the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda. That issue was not the subject of detailed argument at the hearing of the appeal. On the refoulement issue, the Supreme Court concluded that it was unnecessary for it to determine it. As such, the High Court’s determination that Rwanda was in general safe for individuals removed under the MEDP was not disturbed. That is the fact of the matter.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Politics is about the exchange of views and ideas and the delivery of policies. I think we have reached an impasse. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Opposition Back-Benchers think that the scheme would have worked, and the Government think that the scheme was expensive and would not have worked. That is the clear blue—or red—water between us on this. I am grateful for my noble friend Lady Lister’s support for the Government in taking the steps that we have taken.

The UK will also exit the UK-Rwanda treaty as part of ending this partnership and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to repeal the safety of Rwanda Act. Clause 37 will achieve this. In doing so, it is also important that we address the issue that has been endemic in the discussion we have had today, that somehow this was a deterrent and the removal of this clause and the removal of the scheme will therefore end that deterrent. I just refer noble Lords to Clauses 1 to 12 of this Bill, which establish a new Border Security Command and put in place resources of £150 million and £280 million over the next few years to establish very strong action on the meaningful issues that are important to us all.

We have created co-operation with the French, Dutch, Germans and Belgians through the new Border Security Commander on tackling the small boats at source. There is the work that the border commander has been doing with the French Government as part of the preparations for today’s conference between the President of the Republic of France, the Prime Minister and other representatives. There is also the work that the Government will do under Clauses 13 to 17 of this Bill to create new offences to bring people to justice if they provide activity on the issue of supplying articles, handling articles, collecting information and offences committed outside the United Kingdom. There is also Clause 18 on endangering another during the sea crossing to the United Kingdom, as well as powers to search on electronic devices to bring people to justice in that way. This Bill is full of deterrent activity that, if and when implemented by the Government after being passed by both Houses, will make a real difference.

I am pleased to say to the House that, hot off the press today, the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of France have now finished their deliberations and, speaking with the President at a news conference just a few moments ago, the Prime Minister has confirmed a new UK-France returns pilot scheme. The Prime Minister has said that the scheme will come into force in a matter of weeks. Migrants arriving via small boats will be detained and returned to France in short order. In exchange for every return, a different individual will be allowed to come here via safe and legal routes, which individuals in this House have been pressing this Government to have. There will be strict security checks, open only to those who have not tried to enter the UK illegally. The suggestion is that, under the pilot, 50 people per week will be sent back to France across the channel—as I recall, even in this very week alone, that will be 46 more than left under the Rwanda scheme.

For the first time since we left the European Union, the UK has secured a bilateral agreement with France to pilot the return of illegal migrants across the channel. This tightly controlled pilot will be, I hope, the premise for further action downstream. The UK-France summit today has seen both nations strengthen co-operation on border security. We know that there is no silver bullet on this issue. We know that the returns pilot is part of a border crackdown, but it is the culmination—and this goes again to the value of the Border Security Command in this Bill—of six months’ work by the Border Security Commander with the Home Secretary, my right honourable friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, the French Interior Minister and the French-established new Compagnie de Marche. That is real progress in developing real, positive action. I can even go back to our discussions about Europol earlier today, on ensuring that we tackle smuggling gangs and disrupt their business model, that we have stronger law enforcement and that we dismantle this multi-million pound black market. This is not just about gangs; it is about lives.

The Rwanda scheme was ineffective, costly and did not deliver. The Government’s proposals in this Bill, and the statements by the Prime Minister and the President of France today, will add greatly to the potential to impact this heinous crime and business.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I just check, now that the Prime Minister and the French President have announced the details of the scheme, whether the Minister’s contention is that what has been announced today—once it has had a pilot and been scaled up—is, in effect, the Government’s attempt to put in place a deterrent that he thinks will, over the term of this Parliament, have the desired effect of driving down the number of people crossing the channel to effectively as low as you can get it? Is that his contention?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are doing a range of things. The border security Bill is one of them. We have put the £150 million and £280 million for future SRs into the Border Security Command. Our work with the French so far has prevented 12,000 crossings this year alone through joint patrols and intelligence services. We are funding a new unit of specialist officers to increase patrols. We have a new specialist intelligence unit stationed at Dunkirk being launched today. Additional drone pilots are being launched. We have funded an extra 100 specialist National Crime Agency intelligence officers who will be stationed with Europol—to go back to the points that we mentioned earlier.

The NCA has seized 600 boats. Germany is already looking at changing its laws because of action that we have taken with the Border Security Command. We have put in place a landmark agreement with Iraq. We have practised and worked through illegal working raids. Arrests have increased by 50%. We have boosted asylum decision-making. Since the election, 30,000 people have gone back—a 12% increase since the previous Government. We have work upstream with Vietnam and Albania to stop people making the journeys from those countries in the first place.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

So he really cannot say.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Look, if we are going to talk about more people coming, can we go back to 2016? Can the noble Lord tell me how many people arrived on a small boat in 2016, compared with July 2024? I will tell him. There were 400 in 2016 and over 30,000 in 2024. We have a legacy of complete and utter failure by that Government, of which he was a significant member in the Cabinet. These are strong, practical measures; the Rwanda scheme was not, which is why I commend Clause 37 to the House. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what we have said. If he chooses to vote at some point to remove Clause 37, I and, I think, many other Members of this House will stand together to oppose him.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It has been a microcosm of the numerous debates in your Lordships’ House over the last few years. I was momentarily flattered by being afforded the word “gallant” by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but I realised quite quickly that it was insincere.

It will not be surprising to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Government Benches that I disagree with more or less everything that they have said in this debate. In relation to the deterrent, the Government have not created a credible alternative to the Rwanda scheme. They have not grasped the necessity of stopping demand by deterring illegal migrants from making the journey in the first place. I simply cannot understand how they believe that they can stop the boats without a deterrent. The Minister implies that the Bill is a deterrent. The Government claim that simply instituting a Border Security Commander with nothing to command and creating three new offences will deter illegal migrants. This is clearly not the case.

Picking up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I remind the Government of what David Coleman, the Emeritus Professor of Demography at the University of Oxford, told the Public Bill Committee in the other place. He said:

“It is, I think, very much second best to the idea of trying to deter migration for asylum claiming in the first place. That, of course, was dismissed by the present Government as being unfeasible, unworkable and unkind, so the Rwanda scheme was scrapped… it seems to me that the only obvious way of deterring movement to Britain is by making the movement to Britain unattractive”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 27/2/25; col. 50.]


Regardless of what the Minister or the Liberal Democrats want to claim, offshoring to a safe third country has worked. As has already been mentioned, particularly by my noble friends, Australia is the only country that has been successful in stopping small boats—by establishing offshore detention facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. This reduced arrivals to virtually zero. It has worked so far for the Government to claim that Rwanda would never have worked. This is manifestly false. I hope that the Government come to realise what a mistake they have made by not instituting a deterrent. However, for now, I will withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 102A, 115A, 115B, 115C, 115D, and 115E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to repeal Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. This section sets out that “relevant persons” may be detained for as long as the Secretary of State deems “reasonably necessary” to carry out examinations or removal, to make an immigration or deportation decision, or to issue removal directions.

As with many of the decisions to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act, I question the noble Baroness’s intent on this point. Why does she oppose the exercise of reasonable detention to carry out an examination or to facilitate a removal process? As the Government themselves recognise, these are important powers that allow the Government to facilitate an operable migration system. If even this Government believe that Section 12 should be retained, this tells us something about its necessity.

I wonder what the noble Baroness proposes instead. What would she do, for instance, if a person refused to undergo an examination? What would she do if a decision was made to remove a person but, because the state could not detain them, they simply ran off? This does not seem to us to be a reasonable or proportionate amendment and I therefore oppose it on this basis.

Amendment 112 in my name seeks to reintroduce Section 11 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the Government in this Bill are proposing to repeal. This Section of the Act introduced a new legal power to detain individuals specifically in connection with the Government’s duty to remove people who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be clear about the provisions in this Section. Section 11 provided to immigration officers and the Home Secretary the clear, legal authority to detain people who fell within the removal duty framework, to hold them lawfully during processing and to enforce removals, while also incorporating safeguards for children and pregnant women. What in this do the Government disagree with so much that they feel that they have to repeal this Section of the Act? We are clear on this side of the House that people who come to the United Kingdom illegally must be removed.

I will set out my position briefly and then invite the Minister to explain why he and the Government want to axe this provision from law. We believe, as we have set out before, that those who come to the United Kingdom illegally should not be allowed to remain. What is the purpose of having law if we allow people to break it with no consequence? Is this not the equivalent of allowing shoplifters to hang on to what they have stolen? Is this not the same as allowing those who break into people’s homes to keep hold of the things they have taken after they have been caught?

Without this provision, we are directly allowing people to benefit from their criminality. To us on this side, it is wholly irresponsible for a Government to allow those who break our laws to benefit from their activities. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to really defend what his Government are doing. To us, the decision to repeal Section 11 seems reckless.

Furthermore, our Amendment 113 similarly seeks to reintroduce Section 13 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which sought to reduce the administrative burden on our courts by reducing the chance that we would be faced with vexatious appeals early on in the detention process. This Section also sought to delay access to immigration bail. This has many benefits, the main one being that it addressed the problem that individuals who crossed illegally could be released on bail before the Home Office could organise their removal, leading to long delays, absconding or the person simply disappearing into the system.

Removing this provision poses a clear risk of complicating the removals process, clogging up the courts and fundamentally undermining the Government’s capacity and ability to get those people who should not be in this country out. I hope the Minister will similarly explain why the Government think this move is a sensible one. Can he assure the House now that this decision will not create any increase in the backlog, and can he confirm that this will not delay the process of removing those who come here illegally? Can he commit now to the reincorporation of Section 13 into this Bill, if any of his answers to those questions are in doubt?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I first thank my noble friend Lady Lister for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I will first acknowledge the question she raised on the adults at risk in detention guidance. I happen to know also that she has tabled a Parliamentary Question, which is due for answer shortly. I expect to respond to the review within a couple of months and any changes in the proposals that are brought forward will be subject to parliamentary approval. I will be answering her question in much more detail in very short order, and I hope that will help her to resolve that issue.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, the shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their contributions. I will start with Amendments 112 and 113 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. The amendments seek to retain the powers of detention and the powers to grant immigration bail where a person is subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. They are reliant on the provision to impose a duty to remove on the Secretary of State, which this Government are seeking to repeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yet again, by speaking against the amendments in this group.

I shall touch on each one briefly, starting with Amendment 103, which would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, as set out in the explanatory note. The explanatory note provided by the noble Baroness has a flaw. It fails to recognise that Section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to which her amendment ultimately pertains, refers both to a person who has claimed to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking in bad faith and to a person who is a threat to public order. Let us be clear about who we are talking about in these amendments: people who have tried to use modern slavery protections in bad faith and people who are a threat to public order and public safety for British citizens. The clause as it stands would allow the Government to remove these people from the United Kingdom and ensure that they would not be eligible for indefinite leave to remain as a result of their claims made in bad faith of eligibility and the modern slavery protections.

We on these Benches raised our concerns about those who would seek to exploit loopholes in modern slavery protections at some length earlier this week. The provisions in Clause 29 of the Illegal Migration Act seek to address this by allowing the Government to identify bad actors who are abusing the system and to remove them from the United Kingdom. Not to do so would be an insult to all those people who suffer at the hands of slave-masters and who should rightly hold a genuine entitlement to protection. The amendment seeks to apply those protections to those who are acting in bad faith or those who are a threat to public order. It is no wonder that even this Government have decided, in their drafting of the Bill, to keep this provision in force.

I seriously question why the noble Baroness seeks to question modern slavery protections in such a way. As such, we cannot support the amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has approached the discussion. I hope that I can convince her straight away by saying that the Government are steadfast in their commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors. That is why we had the debate on Tuesday, in which I re-emphasised that.

Care should be taken to avoid unintentionally weakening the protections afforded to victims of modern slavery and to public order. Repealing the majority of the modern slavery measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would do just that. That Act put protections of and support for potential victims of modern slavery, stemming from the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, into primary domestic legislation for the first time, building on the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The proposed amendments would repeal these.

I come at it from a different perspective from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. In my view, the measures being lost would include the right to a recovery period in the national referral mechanism; the circumstances in which confirmed victims may be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK; and where the rights and protections can be withheld on the grounds of public order or bad faith, in line with Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. These measures ensure that support and protections and removal from the modern slavery system are available to all who require them. It is vital to retain them.

Section 29 is the sole modern slavery measure in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be retained. It would, if commenced, amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. Here, I share the view of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that we can examine the national referral mechanism and agree with partners our priorities for long-term reform.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act sets out a range of measures. It is not necessary to replicate that defence elsewhere in legislation. On restricting information shared in respect of the modern slavery identification, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides certain bodies in England and Wales with a statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State. The information provided for that notification enables the UK to fulfil its international and other obligations.

The duty to notify is discharged for consenting adults by making a referral to the national referral mechanism or, where the adult does not consent, by completing an anonymous entry on the digital system. This information allows us to provide a better picture of modern slavery and helps improve law enforcement responses. It does not include information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to that information being included. Child victims do not need to consent. If a person is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are eligible for the recovery period that I mentioned earlier. Imposing restrictions on the information provided would be to the detriment of our obligations to such vulnerable people.

I agree that it is vital that the UK complies with its obligations, including as a signatory to the Council of Europe convention that the noble Lord mentioned. Implementation and compliance with these obligations does not require full incorporation into UK law. I say on behalf of the Government that the UK complies with its obligations under the convention by a combination of measures contained in domestic legislation, guidance and the criminal justice system. The modern slavery statutory guidance provides a framework where we can ensure that the convention continues to be monitored through reporting of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Finally, the Government are committed to ensuring victims can access the necessary support for whatever length of time it is required. Following a positive conclusive grounds decision, confirmed victims of modern slavery receive support from the modern slavery victim care contract and can continue receiving tailored needs-based support through the recovery needs assessment process via the NHS, local authorities and others. That specialist support also includes assistance to access the labour market, vocational training and education and application support for a national insurance number. The Government do not place an overall time limit on how long a victim can remain in support. Following a conclusive grounds decision, victims of modern slavery are considered for temporary permission to stay. That is all important and gives real support to victims of modern slavery.

I have not mentioned the amendments individually, but collectively that response shows that the Government are committed to their international obligations, want to support victims of modern slavery and believe that the retention of the measures in the migration Act is vital to doing that in a fair and appropriate way. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, does not disappoint me because these were his Government’s provisions, so of course I would have expected him to speak in support of them. I think that my speech was in fact accurate as to the content of the amendment that he referred to and was fuller than the explanatory statement.

I think that we and Conservative noble Lords start from different points of view; they seem still to demonstrate a culture of disbelief with regard to people who claim that they were victims of modern slavery and as to whether one gives them the benefit of the doubt as a starting point or disbelieves them. Using terms such as “real victims” discounts the fact that there is an NRM procedure with the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds arrangements that the Minister has referred to. We do indeed have Section 45, which provides a defence in certain circumstances, but regarding only some offences. As I have said, that is inadequate.

I will not go back over the information-sharing arguments because of the time and because we have—well, I have—addressed them today. However, secure reporting is understood to be very important, including by the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and the current anti-slavery commissioner has said:

“We need to be able to give these victims the confidence that if they do come forward their perpetrators will be held to account and that they will continue to receive the support and care that they need”.


The current director of labour market enforcement has also said:

“There needs to be an expectation on the part of workers that if they go to an authority to demonstrate that they are being exploited, that will not prejudice their right to be in this country”.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I need to declare my regular interest in the RAMP organisation, which provides support for me and for other Members of this House across all parties. I want to start by reflecting on Amendment 190, which is about protecting trafficked people and those coerced, in many cases, into coming into this country. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, just referred to the session a few weeks ago here in the Palace of Westminster where we heard testimonies from people and how they managed to get out of the modern slavery circumstance in which they found themselves. It is important that those migrant workers are able to report their abuse without fear of the other part of the system coming in and saying, “Well, you’re here illegally and we won’t deal with your case of being coerced to come here in the first place first”.

It is a matter of which part of the system you put first. The amendment tries to make sure that we can protect those being coerced and not subject them immediately to questions about their immigration status rather than about the coercion they have received. It would be good if these things could be worked together, but the harsh reality is that they are not. Migrant workers have heightened vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and are less likely to report it. In many of the cases that we heard of here in this Palace, people were literally running away with nothing, but they could not run away until they had someone they could run to. They feared that the authorities would prioritise their insecure immigration status over the harm that they had received. That is the balance this amendment is trying to correct.

This concern is well founded. Evidence indicates that individuals’ personal data is frequently shared between labour market enforcement agencies, the police and immigration enforcement. This occurs despite the absence of any legal obligation for labour market enforcement agencies or local authorities to verify workers’ immigration status or report those with insecure status to the Home Office. Unscrupulous employers are able to capitalise on this fear with impunity, and it pushes down wages and conditions right across the board. That is the purpose of this amendment, and I commend it to the Minister. In explanation at the end, perhaps he could say how we can deal with the issues of people trying to escape from coerced, abusive and exploitative labour and how that can be dealt with effectively when the other part of the system is working against it.

I want to refer to the amendment on which I pressed the Minister on Tuesday. I am grateful for him pointing out where it is, because the only point that I wanted to make on it was that the requirement now is for the Minister to consult the devolved Governments rather than simply to take note of them, which I thought perhaps was the indication we were getting from his earlier letter. I am pleased that the amendment requires that he should do so.

On GDPR, I understand why the Conservatives have come to this position, because they simply say that everybody coming to this country by irregular means is illegal. Of course, they do not want their cases to be heard; they just want to get rid of them again. Thankfully, in further amendments we are going to deal with today, we are going to remove that universality of approach, assuming that this House passes the Bill in the way that the Government have laid it before us. It is important that GDPR applies to everyone in the UK, including those in the criminal justice system undergoing investigations. Universality in that sense has been a principle of our law, and we should stick to it and not create illegality when it does not necessarily exist.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for commencing this afternoon’s consideration and for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before addressing the points made by noble Lords on their own amendments, I just want to point out government Amendment 96 to Clause 33 in this group, which I will come back to in a moment.

I will begin by addressing the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which have been reflected elsewhere. He may know that during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act, we as the Official Opposition and I as the then shadow Immigration Minister moved amendments. I do not need to see—with due respect now—a 10-year-old photograph of us to reflect on that, but if he wishes to pass it to me, I may have to. In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through. We want to look at the visa rules to ensure that they are operating fairly and properly. It is not related directly to the amendments before us today, but I just wanted to place that on the record again for the noble Lord.

Government Amendment 96 in my name does indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, amend the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with the trailer registration data that may be used by the police and onwards shared by the police and the Home Office in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill. Clause 33(8) creates a power to make police regulations to specify the purposes related to policing and, as currently drafted, the clause creates a duty to

“consult such of the following persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

and lists Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and police representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I probe the Minister on the point he made in response to my noble friend’s amendment on data sharing and the GDPR? The Minister said—and I understand why he said it—that he felt my noble friend’s amendment was unnecessary. Is he able, either today, in writing or on a future day, to reassure the House that there are not cases where we are dealing with foreign criminals or those who have entered the country illegally where either his department or relevant officials are stopped from dealing with them because of that? Is he basically saying that it is not a problem—that there are no cases of dealing with criminality or these gangs where there is an information-sharing problem? If he is happy to reassure us that there really is not a problem and the existing GDPR framework works effectively, then clearly that is very reassuring. Is he able to say that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look in detail at the Hansard report of the contributions that have been made today and reflect on them, but my assessment is that I can give the noble Lord that assurance. If there is any difference in the detail that he has mentioned, I will double-check with officials to make sure that we are clear on that.

The noble Lord should know, and I think he does know, that one of the Government’s objectives is to turbocharge the removal of foreign national criminals with no right to stay in the United Kingdom after their sentence, and indeed during it, and to ensure that those with offences that are a bar to their entry to the United Kingdom are monitored and acted on accordingly. That is an important principle. Without rehearsing the arguments around that with him now, I can say that the past year has shown that we have had an increase in the number of foreign nationals who have been removed, and it is our objective to try to do that.

To give the noble Lord reassurance, I will ensure that my officials and I examine the Hansard report, and, if the reassurances I have given are not sufficient for him, he has the opportunity to revisit this issue on Report, as does the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In the light of that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and that she and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, do not press their other amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, it might help the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to know that, in the paragraph in the Data Protection Act that sets out an exemption to data sharing, the wide phrase,

“for the purposes of immigration enforcement”,

is one that these Benches have opposed. Given our relative positions, that might be a pretty good reassurance for him.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for extending the debate a little. The pre-2012 visa regime was more realistic—if I can put it like that—as to the position of domestic workers. Restricting the period that they could remain in this country after an incident to six months is frankly insufficient to help them recover. You would not employ somebody for six months as, for example, a nanny, if you can find somebody who is able to do the job for longer. I am of course disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s response to Amendment 190.

With regard to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, while I was listening to him, I was struck that we should recognise the agency of people who are affected or abused. The Employment Rights Bill has a clause that raises a very interesting situation: the state can take enforcement action on behalf, and without the consent, of an affected individual. That raises some very interesting and frankly rather troubling issues. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 95.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

96: Clause 33, page 28, line 37, leave out from “consult” to end of line 1 on page 29 and insert “—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and(c) such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the views of a body of constables in the United Kingdom as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with which trailer registration data may be disclosed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. At present, we are not minded to support Amendments 97 and 98. I entirely understand the rationale behind them and many noble Lords have spoken powerfully in support of them. The concern we have is simply an operational one, which was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The operational implications of these amendments may be very broad and far reaching. It seems to me that they would create a practical obligation for the UK Government to deploy biometric collection facilities or personnel across multiple jurisdictions, regardless of cost or feasibility.

Clause 34 applies specifically to authorised persons, who are, in the definition of the clause,

“a person authorised by the Secretary of State”.

That could come at an unknown and potentially significant cost. Are we to set up biometric processing hubs in every conflict-adjacent state? The noble Lord, Lord German, stated that that could easily be done, but I remain to be convinced. My noble friend Lord Harper was very pertinent about this. If the Government are to support this, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the logistical burden on government would be?

Amendment 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is a probing amendment designed to understand which organisations will have access to biometric information for the purposes of exercising a function relating to law enforcement. It brings with it the noble Lord’s customary focus and expertise in this area. It is very welcome, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out which agencies will have access to this information to fulfil the demands set out in Clause 35.

I once again reiterate that we need to make sure that, in the technical solutions we are discussing on this fundamental issue, we are firm and robust in taking steps to mitigate and ultimately end the crisis of illegal migration, not exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has just made. There is a common interest between His Majesty’s Opposition and us on that issue.

The important point about Clause 34 is that biometrics are required as part of an immigration or nationality application to conduct checks on the person’s identity and suitability before they come to the UK. That is a perfectly legitimate government objective and the purpose of the clause is to establish it in relation to the powers in the Bill, which aim to strengthen the Government’s ability to respond flexibly in crisis situations in particular, as noble Lords across the Committee have mentioned. The Bill provides the power to take biometrics—fingerprints or facial images of the applicant—without the need for an application to be submitted. That has had a generally positive welcome from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the signatories of the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. It is important to recognise that.

The proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to determine whether the person poses a security threat—this goes to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which I will come back to in a moment—before facilitating their exit from another country. The Bill will ensure that the power to collect biometrics outside of a visa application process will take place only in tightly defined circumstances where individuals are seeking to leave a particular country due to a crisis or any other situation where this Government facilitate their exit.

Before I move on to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the matter that he raised. Where biometrics are collected in connection with immigration or nationality applications, the police will be able to conduct their own checks against the biometrics captured under the clauses in this Bill. For example, the police currently have access to this data when the biometrics are enrolled into the immigration and asylum biometric system. They can then be washed against a series of police fingerprint databases, which include unified collection captured at police stations and other sets of images, including from scenes of crime and special collections, used to identify high-risk individuals. The noble Lord made this very point. This could be particularly important with individuals who have been involved in terrorism activity and appear on counterterrorism databases. The police make checks against the Home Office fingerprint database to help identify a person they have arrested and assess whether they might also be a foreign national offender. I hope the fact that those checks are undertaken will enable him to withdraw his amendment, based on that assurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, raised important issues and tabled amendments which aim to defer or excuse the request for biometrics from overseas applicants. As I have said, biometrics are normally required to be taken as part of an application to conduct checks on the person’s identity. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, said, that is important for security.

In all cases, it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the decision-maker about their identity. A decision-maker may decide it is appropriate for an application to be made at a visa application centre, or to enrol the biometrics to be deferred or waived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He will recall the example I gave of a two year-old boy in Sudan wanting to be reunited with his grandmother. It took 11 months to do that, and it required the transportation of information half-way across Africa in order to achieve it.

Will the Minister look at the countries generating the largest number of migrants who end up in boats in the channel, on irregular journeys, as some would put it—we all know that Sudan is one of the foremost of those countries—and see if we can do more to prevent people leaving in the first place by dealing with issues like family reunion in a more expeditious manner? I am not asking him necessarily to come forward with amendments to that effect, but even if he were to facilitate further discussions between his department and particularly the FCDO to see how that might be generated, that would be helpful to the Committee.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I will let my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti speak and then respond.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sorry to come in on the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, again. My noble friend the Minister discussed the need for flexibility. Surely the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would extend governmental flexibility to facilitate biometrics being taken in more places for family reunion cases. The noble Lord opposite was concerned that this would put an onerous obligation on the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State is the person who will authorise people, and he will not make these authorisations if he thinks they are impracticable or overly burdensome. Can my noble friend the Minister reflect on that in future and see this as providing additional flexibility and not an additional burden?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In response to both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I will repeat what I said in my preamble today: the Home Office is continuing to assess whether broader policy changes are needed to balance that humanitarian concern. The noble Lord made a very strong point about a child aged two and the length of time for a reunion—that will fall within our assessment of the broader humanitarian concern. We need to balance that with security requirements; however, in the case he put to us, a two-year old child would self-evidently not pose that type of threat.

This is important. I say to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments that the purpose of the clause is to provide the assurances that we have. I accept that noble Lords are testing that; however, while we will examine the points that have been made, I believe that there are alternative ways to achieve that objective. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not to press her amendments. I also hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

We are all on the same side here, and I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate that he stated that he will reflect on what we have said from all sides of the House.

It is true that there are alternative ways and that the UNHCR and the IOM can help. However, if you are in Afghanistan, there is no way that those organisations can help you until you have reached Pakistan. Getting across the Khyber these days is not easy, particularly if you are a child—and children make up more than 50% of the family reunion cases. While I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s answer, I do not believe that it is a complete answer. I therefore press him to go on thinking about the points that have been made today.

I will cheat very slightly by saying that there is also a very direct way in which one could make on-site, in-country visa centres available—to reopen embassies. I am talking about Syria. I do not know why we do not have an embassy in Damascus now for all sorts of political reasons. Given its significance to the whole of the Arab world, we should have an embassy in Damascus. If we had an embassy, we would of course have a visa centre there. I hope that a wish to avoid paying for a visa centre in Syria is not causing the Foreign Office not to reopen the embassy in Damascus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings great experience of the Foreign Office. He will know about this better than I do; I am a Home Office person rather than a Foreign Office person. I am trying to assure the House that, while the points that have been made are a fair challenge to the Government, we believe that the clause meets those obligations, providing flexibility and engagement with the International Organization for Migration, the UNHCR and others.

I mentioned Operation Pitting in Afghanistan in 2021. Some 15,000 people were evacuated and biometrics were collected post arrival in the United Kingdom. In the Sudan evacuation, just under 2,500 individuals were evacuated, with biometric checks taken in third-party countries such as Saudi Arabia. In Gaza, 250 British nationals were supported to exit and biometric checks were taken. The mechanism is there. I have had strong representations from across the Committee on this issue, but I am trying to explain the position of Clause 34. I hope that, with my comments, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

I have not forgotten the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who may want to intervene—he does want to, so I shall allow him to before I finally, I hope, wind up.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister. First, I am broadly reassured. There is just one area where I hope he might reassure himself and therefore me. I mentioned the Afghanistan IED material. It is probably difficult to talk about publicly, but if he could reassure himself that this biometric data had been checked against that database, I would be very reassured and that might help him too.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given a broad description. The police have access to terrorist databases with information and biometrics generally. I think it best not to talk, at the moment, about specific databases. I believe the IED database that he mentioned is covered by the proposals, but I will check with my colleagues who have a responsibility for that, rather than inadvertently give the Committee information that proves subsequently not to be as accurate as I would wish.

With that, I would very much welcome the noble Baroness responding and withdrawing the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I think that is the third time the Minister has asked me to do so, and I will—but not quite yet. I say to those waiting for the next business that I will not be going down the side roads of the summit, what might happen on the northern shores of France or in Syria—much as I would like to, given my own heritage—or my noble friend Lord German’s escapades with portable biometric equipment.

A number of noble Lords, including me, have referred to the reliance on smugglers, which is ironic in the circumstances. I say again to the Committee—to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron—that we are not opposing Clause 34. In fact, we are positively supporting it. We are not challenging the use of biometrics; we are looking at procedures and the candidates for the application of Clause 34.

The Minister referred to the possibilities of what can be done in exceptional circumstances. That is a term that I always find quite difficult; it seems to me that a family disunited in extreme circumstances should be regarded as exceptional. I understand that, from his point of view, that may be different. Frankly, to travel from Sudan to Saudi Arabia twice would be very exceptional in itself.

Given the support across the Committee for the concept of what is incorporated in these amendments, as the Minister said, I wonder whether this is something we might find a moment to discuss after Committee and before Report. There should be a way of taking forward how the procedures can be used, without disrupting the Government’s concerns. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am tempted to just say “I agree”, but it is important that we put some points on the record.

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. Amendment 59 seeks to include an explicit carve-out in the clause to list humanitarian support as a reasonable excuse. The list of reasonable excuses is already quite wide and includes specific exemptions for those undertaking or preparing to undertake the rescue of individuals from danger or serious harm, as well as for those acting on behalf of organisations that provide assistance to asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. I put to the noble Baroness that the list of reasonable excuses in this clause is non-exhaustive, and the provisions ensure that legitimate humanitarian activity is not captured by the offence. I hope that with that assurance, she will withdraw Amendment 59 accordingly.

Amendment 60, again to Clause 16, also provides a list of very reasonable excuses where a person acts for a purpose that is reasonable in the circumstances. That list is non-exhaustive and the wording is intentionally broad to allow courts to assess on the facts of each case whether an individual’s conduct falls within the scope of legitimate activity, including carrying out legal work. In practice, as previously mentioned, law enforcement agencies exercise investigatory discretion when assessing the circumstances of any case, and the prosecution will apply the public interest test when considering charges. That means that individuals acting within the scope of their legal role will not be targeted for prosecution. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance on the points that she has raised in the amendment.

The clause as drafted provides robust protection for those acting lawfully while allowing law enforcement to focus its efforts—as I have said in every discussion we have had to date—on the groups facilitating illegal and dangerous crossings. I hope that is a reassurance to the noble Baroness and she will not press the amendment, but essentially these are areas where we think there is clarity. Therefore, I hope she will reflect on those points and withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, of course I recognise that the lists are not exhaustive. It seemed to me to be fairly helpful to use the term “humanitarian”—but there we are.

I am puzzled by the opposition to the reference to lawyers acting in the field. I wonder whether anybody in this Chamber who provides professional services would like to be dependent on discretion, on the public interest test, particularly when the specific provision in subsection (8)(c)(ii) is that the organisation

“does not charge for its services”.

The legal aid lawyers and others acting for asylum seekers and refugees do not get paid very much, and sometimes they are employed by charities that do not get paid directly for their services, although they raise funds to enable them to carry out those services.

This is not special pleading on the part of the legal profession. It is pleading on behalf of the recipients of legal services, in fact, because of the widespread concern that the relevant legal services are not easily accessed. There are far too many legal aid deserts and far too few people who are in a position to provide advice and representation in this field. I had better not say—I suppose I am about to—that it strikes me a little that “not invented here” is the response to this. That will not win me any friends, but I do not see a damage or a harm that would be caused by including an amendment on the lines of the second in this group.

I am clearly not going to pursue the matter tonight, but it is a concern if this is not accepted and if individuals are told they should just be dependent on discretion and the CPS’s good sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have probably exhausted the use of recklessness—we have had it, virtually, in every other group—but, in essence, I also have a very specific issue to raise in respect of the amendment in my name, which, again, is about ensuring that the right people are criminalised. It is about those who are coerced into steering the dinghies which have been made available.

Paragraph 57 of the JCHR report refers to research by the associate director of border criminology at Oxford University, who said that

“the most common reasons for driving the dinghy were being under duress from smugglers in Northern France; needing a discount on the crossing; or having previous experience driving boats, either from previous employment or irregular journeys”.

There are differences between those groups, and it is the group of people who are under duress that are of interest in this amendment.

First, I want to be clear that the actions of criminals who run the boats in northern France are appalling. They have total disregard for human life. They are not a benevolent facilitator of asylum seekers but criminals who see this trade as a source of great profit. I was able to see a number of those dinghies in the last two weeks, and I heard from the French authorities about some of the actions and tactics that the smugglers adopted towards migrants to evade law enforcement and maximise profit by cramming as many people as they can on to those flimsy boats.

I want to explain something to people who often ask me, “Why don’t you just cut and slash the boat?” There was an example of that last week when the French authorities went into the water but slashed only one cylinder. The reason for that is that those boats have no solid base inside between the floating parts. If you slash them, the boat folds in half and drowns all the people already in the middle of the boat. Therefore, the French authorities are most concerned about taking that sort of action and are much more concerned about going for the motors, which is what I hope they will be doing in the coming weeks. It is right that those forcing people on to these boats should face the full force of the law. Having seen the flimsiness of them, I am absolutely convinced that it is all about making huge amounts of money.

The problem is that this offence is drawn more widely than the Government have set out as their intention. If we are looking solely at people who are coerced or compelled to steer the boat under duress from the smugglers, that is not very much different from the coercion of victims of trafficking, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in this and previous amendments. As the clause is currently drafted, it is not focused sufficiently on those who the Government wish to target and would also catch those asylum seekers who are victims of coercion. I am told that you can identify the people who have been steering these boats: the heat from the very cheap engines means that people get burns on their hands as a result of doing it. I know that the British and the French authorities can easily identify who has been steering a boat; the difficulty is whether that person has been coerced into it. That is why this amendment is in place—simply to give an opportunity to understand what the Government would do in those circumstances.

I appreciate that, in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister stated that:

“In practice, the focus will be intelligence-led and targeted at those who law enforcement believe to be working in connection with organised criminal networks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 128.]


It was also stated that

“the CPS will exercise … discretion, and the courts will be able to consider all the circumstances when deciding the appropriate sentence”.

While prosecutorial discretion is an important safeguard, maybe it is not a substitute for clarity within the Bill itself. On that very specific matter, I ask the Minister to give his consideration.

I must also say, in respect of the earlier amendments that we have just heard, that it seems to me that the Conservative Party wants to treat everyone in the boat as a criminal. If that is the case, does the Minister agrees or disagree with that? If he agrees, what is the consequence of treating asylum seekers as criminals when they arrive in our country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I think there is a common aim in the Committee to ensure that we take action to prevent illegal migration, dangerous crossings and fatalities at sea. While we may have different views on some of the issues, this is a common aim that we all share. The endangerment offence, which we will talk about now, is a tangible measure to address dangerous acts during crossings and introduces consequences for such behaviour that risks or causes serious injury or death.

A number of amendments have been brought forward by noble Lords. I start, if I may, with Amendments 63 and 64, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Amendment 64 seeks to apply the offence to any individual who enters the UK illegally using a vessel that they could not reasonably have thought was safe for the purposes of reaching the UK, and Amendment 63 seeks to remove reference to specific countries.

I understand the intention of Amendment 63. The named countries in Clause 18 are appropriate to capture the focus on channel crossings, which is the Government’s main focus with this legislation, and provide clarity on which body of water is the focus. The reason we have looked at the particular three countries named in the Bill is that that is where the majority of the focus is today. I understand the points that the noble Lord has mentioned, but this has been done to focus the approach on channel crossings.

Amendment 64 would fundamentally alter the focus of Clause 18. Instead of targeting specific acts, this amendment would criminalise any person for boarding an unsafe vessel. The reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means the amendment would capture all those making a journey. Is it in the public and taxpayer interest to put every small boat arrival through the criminal justice system? I sense agreement from the noble Lord, Lord German, on that point.

The Government do not condone crossings, far from it. Noble Lords have heard during this debate that we are focused on taking action. However, the decision to board these flimsy boats is often made in chaotic circumstances, with the condition of the boat and the passage outside the individual’s control. We saw some of this in pictures at the weekend when the French took action. Setting out what is reasonable in that scenario is almost impossible, and what may be judged safe in one moment may quickly change. The weekend’s events showed that very clearly. Furthermore, adding the requirement of an unsafe vessel does not add to existing offences of illegal entry and arrival. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that explanation.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require that the relevant act was done “intentionally or recklessly”. Amendment 66, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the act to be committed intentionally and/or for financial gain. I recognise the intention behind requiring that the person committed the act intentionally or recklessly. That mirrors the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I will respond to before Report. I thank the committee for its work and will consider its conclusions carefully. However, the amendment as currently proposed would undermine the effectiveness of the offence. Focusing on whether someone commits an act intentionally or recklessly pulls the focus of the offence away from the serious harm or risk of such harm caused to vulnerable people in these situations and, crucially, would make it easier for criminals to evade the offence.

Adding a requirement for financial gain would undermine the intended effect. A person does not immediately need to financially gain for it to be appropriate for there to be consequences for dangerous acts that cause or risk serious injury or death of another. The amendment conflates measures in the Bill that tackle the facilitators behind small boat crossings and those, such as the endangerment offence, that are a response to the serious harms posed by individual actions. Those who cause risk or harm should face consequences.

The endangerment offence rightly targets the most dangerous forms of behaviour and offers increased sentencing. Existing safeguards are in place. Prosecution services will, as I have said throughout the Bill, consider the particular facts of a case and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord German, that the offence has been designed to be proportionate and effective, and addresses the most dangerous behaviour in order to reduce harm.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for Amendment 67. This may bring her a sense of déjà vu but I am going to say pretty much what I said in the last group of amendments. It is our assessment that Section 45 of the legislation that she facilitated in 2015 is a defence against prosecution where an individual commits the offence as a direct result of, or is compelled to commit an offence as a result of, their exploitation. The example the noble Baroness helpfully gave of a person entering a boat to save a child would be covered by Section 45 of that Act. It includes the catch-all defence of modern slavery for actions deemed to be criminal under this legislation. The national referral mechanism, which I know the noble Baroness is familiar with, is part of that defence, and I hope that those safeguards are in place.

On top of that, we have the standard prosecutorial defence mechanism whereby the prosecution—the CPS in this case—would have to make a judgment. The example that the noble Baroness has given would, I think, give pause for thought for that discretion by the CPS. With the general criminal defence of duress, I hope those two issues together will reassure the noble Baroness on that point.

The new endangerment offence addresses the current gap in legislation. We have specifically and carefully designed it to address dangerous acts that create further risk in what are already dangerous crossings. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments. It is about focus on the channel. It is about making sure that we give proper protections where required and that we have clarity in the law. I hope that they will not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

70: Clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) a constable of the Police Service of Scotland,(d) a constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or(e) an NCA officer,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition of “authorised officer” for the purposes of the powers in clauses 20 to 23 to cover constables of the police services of Scotland and Northern Ireland and National Crime Agency officers.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I begin by reaffirming the policy position of the Government for the use of search and seizure powers, which is an approach grounded in the principles of proportionality, accountability and the rule of law. The amendments in my name before the Committee today have an underpinning policy objective, and that is to ensure that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the necessary powers to search for, seize, retain and use information from electronic devices belonging to irregular entrants or arrivals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an electronic device is likely to contain information relevant to the offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. These powers are vital to disrupt organised crime groups. We must ensure that authorised officers are fully equipped to use the powers effectively and we must have safeguards in place against misuse.

Government Amendment 70 expands the definition of “authorised officer” to include

“a constable of the Police Service of Scotland … Northern Ireland, or … an NCA officer”.

This now ensures that constables from devolved police services and the National Crime Agency, who were already authorised, may exercise the full powers available to them under the legislation.

The National Crime Agency-focused amendments that follow on from government Amendment 70—Amendments 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 92 and 94—collectively ensure that NCA officers have all the relevant safeguards and protections and legal clarity in using these powers. Government Amendments 75, 79 and 92 require that the NCA officers exercising powers under Clauses 20, 21 and 23 must be authorised by an officer of at least inspector equivalent grade with the requirement to inform a superintendent or equivalent officer, in line with safeguards applied to police constables.

Government Amendments 77 and 81 provide protections under paragraphs 21 and 22 of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, ensuring that those who obstruct or assault an NCA officer during the exercise of their powers under Clauses 20 and 21 may face criminal prosecution. Government Amendment 80 enables NCA officers to use reasonable force where necessary in the execution of their powers under Clause 21. Government Amendments 82 and 83 provide for the lawful transfer of seized items to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State. I apologise for the number of amendments but I hope that they are all relatively straightforward. Government Amendment 94 provides legal clarity by defining “NCA officer” within Clause 26.

These amendments are necessary and proportionate to enable officers to perform their duties effectively. The National Crime Agency, as noble Lords will know, is the central agency in combating serious and organised immigration crime, and previously the Bill sought to include NCA officers by enabling them to use their immigration powers. However, NCA officers are triple warranted, holding the powers of constable, immigration officer and customs officer. Through ongoing engagement with the NCA, it became clear that it would be more operationally effective for the Bill explicitly to enable them to exercise their police powers under this legislation.

Government Amendment 70 extends these powers to the devolved police services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that we have consistency across the United Kingdom as a whole. Members will know that criminal organisations do not respect administrative boundaries and will operate wherever they can. Due to the inclusion now of devolved police services, government Amendment 89 ensures that appropriate legal procedures are in place for the disposal of relevant articles held by constables of Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

There are several consequential amendments—Amendments 85, 86, 87, 88 and 93—which are minor and technical in nature, but will, I hope, help to ensure the legal coherence of the Bill. In essence, the amendments extend powers to the NCA, police in Scotland and police in Northern Ireland, with appropriate safeguards. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord German (LD)]

To be absolutely clear, are there further amendments in this area to Clause 33 concerning trailers, or is that covered in this group? I will give the Minister time to think about that.

The Minister sent us a letter on 17 June relating to these amendments. On Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers, the letter said that an amendment had been tabled to Clause 33(9)—this is why I ask the question—which specifies the persons and bodies to be consulted before making regulations under Clause 33(8), which is about trailer data. It says that: “at present, this amendment is framed in such a way that the Northern Ireland and Scottish Ministers need be consulted only where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so”. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider it appropriate so to do? If he wants to answer some time later, that would be fine.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always hope to be helpful to the noble Lord. I suggest that we consider those matters in some detail when we reach Clause 33. These amendments relate to the additional powers for the National Crime Agency and bringing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Scotland into the remit of the legislation. They have all been done in consultation with the three responsible bodies—the Home Secretary and the two devolved Administrations. I am very happy to examine Clause 33, but I think it would be in order to do so just after Clause 32 and before Clause 34.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we appreciate that, as the Government go through the Bill, they will make minor adjustments to the language or corrective amendments to tighten it up, but the amendments in this group incorporate substantial changes that could well have been included in the Bill before. The fact that we are now turning to 17 government amendments, with at least eight substantive ones, speaks to the fact that the Bill could have been more carefully drafted. I will not take too much time dwelling on this issue, but it is important to raise that we on this side have been clear throughout Committee that we need to develop legislation that is robust and unambiguous and that can tackle this serious problem. That the Government are only just realising at this late stage that they have missed out key provisions perhaps does not inspire confidence.

Broadly speaking, we support the amendments in this group, in so far as they allow the more effective enforcement of some of the provisions in this Bill, in particular specifying that the NCA will have the capability to seize relevant articles and exercise reasonable force. However, we need to make sure that these powers are exercised with due care and proper procedure and process. I hope the Minister will set out how this will be ensured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I have just double-checked all the amendments that have been laid, and there is none as was laid out in the letter. I will not ask the Minister to reply to this, but it is a lacuna. The letter says that an amendment has been tabled to Clause 33(9). According to the Marshalled List, it is not there. I do not expect a substantive reply, but I guess that an amendment will be laid, and the letter was slightly inaccurate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I have been clear with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, about what these amendments are for. As ever, as Ministers we all know that things are organic and in development. If requests come in, loopholes are found or things need to be tightened up, amendments are part of the parliamentary process, as is reflection on amendments that colleagues table on Report in both Houses from the Opposition and other Benches. It is an organic process. I hope I was clear, and I do not think he objects to the principle behind why they have been tabled. I am grateful for his support.

In reply to the noble Lord, I will just say that I do not write inaccurate letters. I try to be open and fair, which is why the letter was issued. We are not yet at Clause 33; I will give him chapter and verse on all the issues that he has raised when we get there, which is the appropriate part in our proceedings to discuss those matters.

Amendment 70 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

75: Clause 20, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) An NCA officer may exercise a power to search under this section only if the search is authorised by an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector.(8B) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (8A), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power to search under clause 20 exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

79: Clause 21, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) An NCA officer may seize a relevant article under subsection (1) only if the seizure of the article is authorised by an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector.(3B) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (3A), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power to seize an article under clause 21(1) exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

85: Clause 21, page 15, line 28, leave out “or (10)” and insert “, (10), (11) or (13)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 21, page 15, line 40.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

92: Clause 23, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) An NCA officer may access, examine, copy, retain or use information under subsection (1) only if the accessing, examination, copying, retention or use of the information is authorised by an NCA officer of a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector or above.(5) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (4), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer of a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent or above to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power under clause 23(1) to access etc information on a relevant article exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

93: Clause 24, page 18, line 14, leave out “(10)” and insert “(13)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 21, page 15, line 40.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

94: Clause 26, page 19, line 23, at end insert—
““NCA officer” means National Crime Agency officer;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “NCA officer” into clause 26 for the purposes of clauses 19 to 23.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. Just, I hope, to bring a little clarity to the latter discussion between my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Lord, Lord German, as I read it, Clause 13, “Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”, sets out in its first subsection the offence, and it does so neatly separating the actus reus, the actual act—here, offering to supply a relevant article—from the mens rea, which is knowledge or suspicion. Subsection (2) goes on to state:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they had a reasonable excuse”.


It was subsection (2) that we debated at length on the previous day in Committee on this Bill, and it is at that point that the burden of proof shifts to the defence to prove their defence under the subsection.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for bringing these amendments. It has proved to be a very stimulating debate. As others have said, I have an immense amount of respect for him, given his long and distinguished career, and I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened very carefully to what they both said. I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the amendments that they have brought, however. They seek to alter the mens rea principle in Clauses 13, 14 and 16, by replacing the current standard of knowledge or suspicion with one of “intent” in the case of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or “belief” in the case of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It does not seem to me to be in dispute that these amendments, if passed, would introduce a higher and more complex threshold for the mental elements of the offences, thereby raising the requirements for securing conviction and making it significantly more difficult to hold to account those involved in supplying equipment for illegal crossings and other articles used in the facilitation of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. In doing so, they would risk creating precisely the kind of ambiguity that organised criminal gangs thrive on.

I think it is important to remind ourselves what this clause is designed to address. It is aimed at those who provide the tools that make dangerous, illegal crossings possible: those who supply forged passports, false work permits, dinghies and outboard motors that fuel the people-smuggling trade. These individuals are the logistical agents of criminal networks responsible not only for undermining the security of our borders but for endangering lives.

Let us not forget that more than 20,000 people have now crossed the channel in small boats in 2025 alone and, tragically, some have died in the attempt, fundamentally because the journeys are facilitated by those who care more about profit than human life. If we are to be serious about tackling this, we must ensure that the legal framework is as robust and usable as possible. If we replace the standard of knowledge or suspicion with intention or belief, prosecutors will be forced to demonstrate not merely that a person knew or suspected that their goods would be used for immigration crime but that they positively intended or actively believed that they would be used as such. That is a much higher bar, and one that would inevitably lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions and fewer disruptions to these dangerous criminal networks.

The very thorough report from the Joint Committee said that the current standard in the Bill is a low threshold compared to, for example, intentional recklessness. We note that comparable precursor terrorism offences have a higher mental element, requiring intention to commit or assist in the commission of terrorist acts. I think this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, correctly said, these terrorism offences are not precursors and so are not comparable.

The mens rea test of knowledge used in this Bill—the one that the noble Lord and the JCHR have criticised—is the same standard that is used in offences under the Immigration Act 1971, albeit about entry and not the supply of articles. Section 24B(1) of that Act states that:

“A person who … requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and … knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence”.


The operative word here is “knowingly”. This is the same standard that is applied to the offences in Sections 24(A1), (C1), (D1) and (E1), and Sections 24A, 25 and 25A, of the Immigration Act 1971. In short, existing immigration offences all use the test of knowledge to determine the mental element of an offence. It is therefore entirely consistent for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16 to use the same test.

These are not minor procedural safeguards. These are the tools that we need to dismantle the infrastructure of people smuggling. The law should be a shield for the vulnerable, not a loophole for the criminals who exploit them. We have to construct a strong legal framework, not one that is diluted and less able to protect vulnerable people as a result. My noble friend Lord Harper made the point very powerfully that this is about creating a deterrent. We need to confront this threat with a strong legal arsenal, not a weakened one. We should not be inserting language into this Bill that makes it harder to prosecute those who supply the means for deadly journeys. These are serious offences with serious consequences, and the law must reflect that seriousness. In this instance, I oppose these amendments.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling their amendments. They have stimulated a discussion on important points that the Committee needs to consider. I am also grateful to noble Lords for attending this debate when such powerful alternative options are available not 200 metres away—I will use metres instead of my normal yards—where the President of the Republic is addressing both Houses of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord German, tempts me to discuss what the President of the Republic is currently saying. Our relationship is very strong. There are a number of issues on which we are expected to make positive statements in the next couple of days, and we are working very closely on re-intensifying our activities on the northern coast. I will allow further discussions to take place prior to any announcements from this Dispatch Box about the outcome of any discussions between the Prime Minister, the Government and the President of the Republic. I am sure that we will return to those points when the discussions have taken place in a positive framework—as they will.

I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I welcome the JCHR report that was published on 20 June and thank the JCHR for its work. As the noble Lord knows, I have given commitments that the Government will respond in due course. It is worth putting on the record that all measures in this Bill are considered to be compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Government are fully committed to human rights at home and abroad. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. We will respond to those issues in due course, but I wanted to set that out at the beginning, because it is important and part of the framework that the noble Lord has brought forward.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. He started by giving a couple of caveats. Like him, I am a product of a council estate and proud of it, and like him, Latin passed me by at my comprehensive school—I think some people did it, but it passed me by. That does not mean that we cannot address the substance of the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have made. These important issues deserve full merit and consideration.

Amendments 31 and 41, on changing the mens rea in Clauses 13 and 14 from “knows or suspects that” to “intends that, or is reckless as to whether”, follow the findings from the JCHR. Those findings have unanimous support, and we will return to them in due course. In bringing those amendments forward, the CT-style power is now more in line with the counterterror legislation, which is what the noble Lord is intending. Reasonable suspicion is the same threshold as for the offence in Sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In fact, Section 57 does not have a “reasonable excuse” defence; instead, a person must show that

“his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”.

The Section 57 and 58 offences contain no more safeguards when compared with the offences in Clauses 13 and 14.

The mens rea of the current drafting of the clause is designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster to disrupt these criminal smuggling gangs—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has alluded to. Day in, day out, these ruthless people smugglers put vulnerable people on boats in the channel or into the back of refrigerated lorries, not caring if they live or die. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned, people have died as a result. Changing the mens rea to require law enforcement to show intention or recklessness would place undue pressure on those on the front line of tackling organised immigration crime and would slow down the response to stopping these evil criminals undertaking their actions. It is right that we do whatever we can to support law enforcement in tackling these criminals at the earliest possible stages of criminality. For that reason, disappointing as I know it will be to the noble Lord, I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments 32, 42 and 53 seek to change the mens rea for these offences from suspicion to belief. For the supplying and handling of articles and collection of information offences, amending this threshold would significantly raise the bar for enforcement. That is a point made by His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench, along with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Harper and Lord Green of Deddington. I find myself on occasion in company that I am not normally in, but it is right that, if noble Lords are right and make a sensible case, that support is welcome—as it is on this occasion.

A “suspicion” threshold allows for earlier, preventive action, which is a core feature of the legislation. It is designed to enable authorities to disrupt organised crime at the preparatory stage, while still requiring a proper investigation into an individual’s activity, and not in any way damaging a defence’s ability to put up a defence to the prosecution’s case in due course. The shift from suspicion to belief would narrow the scope of these clauses, undermine their preventive purpose, reduce the chance of successful prosecutions and place a greater strain on investigative resources in the first place.

It is important to note that the “knows or suspects” threshold is not novel. It is well established in UK criminal law, especially in regimes aimed at early intervention. For example, under Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, professionals commit an offence if they

“know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering”

and fail to make a disclosure.

Similarly, Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises failure to disclose information where someone “believes or suspects” it might be useful to prevent terrorism. In both the Proceeds of Crime Act and the anti-terror legislation, the mental thresholds are designed to trigger preventive action and have been consistently upheld in the courts as proportionate and compatible with Article 6 and Article 7 of the ECHR. I go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned: namely, that the offences in the Bill serve a preventive purpose. They are not about punishing people after harm has occurred but are instead about stopping harm happening at all.

I will also speak to the concerns that the current offences might criminalise those who are acting innocently or for humanitarian reasons. Each of the relevant clauses includes the reasonable excuse defence, which is non-exhaustive and allows courts to consider the full context of the person’s action. Any good defence would bring forward those defences if, again, the thresholds were passed by the police and the CPS for bringing prosecutions under any legislation that was ultimately passed by both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would expect me to defend the Bill. We have taken judgments on the legislation and taken legal advice internally in the Home Office, and we think that that is a reasonable legislative framework for the operations that we are discussing. We will discuss in later clauses the scrapping of the Rwanda Act and that preventive deterrent, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide some measures of deterrence and of punishment for offences that aid and assist the dangerous illegal crossings for individuals who, in being trafficked, face very serious injury or potential death.

I want to be clear that these powers are not designed for indiscriminate use. Investigations under these provisions will be intelligence-led and focused on enforcement activity on serious organised crime gangs and their enablers, not on the migrants fleeing persecution or those acting with humanitarian motives. I am not giving the Committee theoretical reassurances: these are reflected in how this will operate. The forces trying to stop the criminal gangs will use any legislation that this House passes to ensure that we act as a deterrent but also, therefore, target those individuals who have committed offences under this legislation. They will have the potential to put forward a defence; the prosecution will therefore have the potential to chop that defence to bits and prove that the actions were malicious, as under the legislation before us.

In summary, these clauses contain strong safeguards, including a list of non-exhaustive reasonable excuses, to protect those acting legitimately and in good faith. These safeguards combine with the investigatory discretion that is at the heart of the police’s focus on the real potential criminals in this process, and with the prosecutions that are taken through the CPS and the prosecutions test for charging decisions to be made. Therefore, in my view, the enforcement is targeted, fair and proportionate.

I hope noble Lords will reflect on those points as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill. I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to reflect on what I have said and to consider whether I have convinced them. That is a matter for them to consider in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept their amendments. I assure the noble Lord that the report he has produced will be examined and we will give a full response in due course. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this group of amendments and for the thorough response he has given to your Lordships in Committee this afternoon. For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes the overall aims of the Bill—to deter organised crime and prevent the loss of life at sea. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure there is a legislative framework in place to help eradicate this dangerous criminality. All of us who have spoken in the debate today are agreed about that.

The issue comes down to one of judgment about whether it is preventive, whether it is a deterrent and whether it will really make any difference to those who will anyway try to break these laws. Are we doing the right things to combat this criminality? I do not know all the answers to that any more than the Joint Committee on Human Rights does, but I am grateful for what the Minister said about the importance of the report the committee produced and many of the questions we have rightly raised.

In parentheses, I am glad that organisations such as Liberty take these issues as seriously as they do. They gave very valuable evidence to the committee during its inquiry. You do not have to always agree with the positions of NGOs or groups to know that they are part of the civic response to issues of this kind. We are very fortunate to have such organisations in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the fundamental concern that we have with all the amendments in this group is about their impact on the capacity of the Government to deter crossings in the first place, and it is our view that they dilute that capacity. We need to make it more difficult for smugglers and facilitators to operate, not easier. We need to send a message that Britain is cracking down on this behaviour, not making it easier to get away with. If we want to properly engage with this issue, we need to work with our legal and judicial authorities to give them the power to tackle this challenge head on, not tie them with further restrictions, which would make addressing this grave issue even more difficult.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his comments. I do not think there will be very much difference between us on this, and he has made some very strong points which I may echo in my remarks to the Committee.

I just want to re-emphasise three points which are important to the consideration of these amendments. First, the gangs are the targets of the Government’s action, not the people who are seeking asylum or refugee status, or even the people being trafficked without either of those two issues being the reason. The gangs are the targets.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made much reference to the Joint Committee report on the Bill, a copy of which I have for ease of understanding. I just reaffirm to him that it is the Government’s intention to respond to that report prior to Report. Some of the issues that he is bringing forward as amendments to the Bill are recommendations from the report, but we want to examine the report and give a full response to it before Report. So he will have the opportunity to examine the Government’s response prior to tabling any amendments on Report.

I noted, just out of interest, that there were, I think, 12 Divisions among members of the committee during its consideration of the report on Wednesday 18 June, so there was never unanimity even within the committee on what it should say. Therefore, it is even more important that the Government examine all those concerns and reflect on the 12 Divisions that took place, as well as the unanimity in the report that was finally produced after that. It is important that I say that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I recall that I was keen to tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that in fact paragraphs 1 to 52 had been agreed unanimously. There were Divisions in the report—I mentioned that—but the Minister will be pleased to know that the Labour members of the committee voted in favour of it to a man and woman.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always pleased to know what my comrades in arms in both Houses have done, and it is important that the Government reflect on all points of view. I simply make the point that there will be a response to the committee’s report prior to Report, and those nuances will be examined as part of the discussion.

The third point that the Government want to put on record—I have said this in earlier discussions—is that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the measures in the Bill support that aim and are compatible with UK human rights obligations. That leads directly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German. Those are the three important principles: gangs are the target; we will respond to the report; and we believe we are compliant.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful for the forbearance of the Minister. While he is in a pensive mood, will he confirm that there is a possibility, at least, that the Government’s current review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was announced on 30 March, may well be concluded by the time that we get to Report or Royal Assent to this Bill, and would potentially feed into any further amendments that the Government brought forward?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government are reviewing the issue of Article 8, but intend to do so in a way that examines judicial discretion on Article 8 and potentially looks at how we can improve performance on that issue. It does not mean that we will be withdrawing from Article 8, or indeed from any aspect of the convention. I think it is important that consideration is given to those issues.

If I may, I turn directly to the amendments before the Committee today. I start with Amendments 33 and 38, which seek to add the requirement that one can be prosecuted under these offences only if an individual derives financial or material benefit from engaging in the offence. These offences, as I said, target criminal gangs at the early planning stages, when financial or material gain is often not yet evident. For the very reasons that a number of noble Lords have mentioned, introducing the requirement in the clauses for gain would significantly constrain law enforcement’s ability to intervene early and disrupt organised crime groups before a crossing occurs or money changes hands. Given the complexity of cash flows in these criminal cases, it is impractical to exempt those without apparent financial or material gain, and doing so would shift the burden of enforcement to prove gain, undermining effective prosecution.

Additional amendments to this clause do not take into account the wide range of complex agreements that might be considered when engaging in these events—for example, substantial benefits in kind for engaging in the activity—and with such amendments, people would never be guilty of an offence. Again, these are complex issues, and for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned, there will be continued pressure, and it will be continually ramped up. Even now, I can update the noble Lord, Lord German, that the President of France has made reference to the fact that we need to have international co-operation in his address to both Houses a few minutes ago, and that there will again be consideration of joint action on the criminal gangs, for the very reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Green of Deddington, mentioned, because it is a nationally important issue that needs to be resolved and there will be increasing pressures.

I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who moved the amendment, that I do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate, particularly given the life-threatening risks posed by people smuggling, for his amendments to be accepted. They would undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to examine and stop. Where there is evidence of involvement of organised criminal activity, where lives are endangered and where our borders are undermined, those individuals would rightly be liable for prosecution, regardless of whether financial or material gain can be demonstrated.

There are going to be pressures: the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned them clearly. It is an important issue—I cede that to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In order to deal with these issues, we need to have some potential powers of criminal action, and I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, from the Opposition Front Bench.

Turning to Amendments 203, 35, 44 and 57, Amendment 203 would add the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16, as well as the offence of illegal entry under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, to Section 31 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999. This section currently protects refugees from being punished for certain actions that they may have to take to reach the UK. Amendments 35, 44 and 57 would similarly make it difficult to prosecute an individual were they to engage in this crime and seek to claim refugee status. Those are the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to, which are keen issues that the Committee needs to consider.

I just emphasise again that these offences are targeted not at refugees but at the vile people smugglers. The amendments would provide a potential defence to individuals, even if the commission of the offence had nothing to do with conduct that was necessary to arrive in the UK. As such, an individual could be absolved from all sorts of behaviour, including engaging in offences before arriving in the UK, creating a loophole for anybody who wished to commit those offences. I reassure the Committee that care has been taken by officials in the Home Office, with ministerial support, to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs but do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by these criminal smuggling gangs.

Each clause has a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, including one for those acting on behalf of an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services, and those intending to act in the rescue of a person in danger. Indeed, Clause 15 contains a carve-out of humanitarian items that cannot be considered under Clauses 13 and 14, plus carve-outs under Clause 16 for academics, journalists, rescuers and those seeking to provide those humanitarian services that are necessary. These safeguards, when combined with investigatory discretion in prosecutions and the public interest test for charging decisions, ensure that enforcement is targeted and proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I understand the point that the Minister is making. The JCHR report actually used the term “hygiene kits”, and I did not understand what those might be. They sound a little bit like the complimentary items you might get in plastic wrapping that you cannot undo in in a hotel. Would the Minister agree that we might have a discussion about this? It would require regulations to change the list of articles in Clause 15. It would be far better if we could talk about this as a sensible, non-political point and get it into the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that this offence criminalises not specific articles but those who supply. I do not see a realistic scenario in which items mentioned in Amendment 51A, when used for their intended purposes, could be used in connection with an offence under Sections 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act and therefore fall within scope of this offence. However, I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment. There are legal safe- guards, and we can reflect on this and have a discussion around it. I hope she recognises that the points I have made are equally valid, and that she does not move her amendment. We can examine this issue outside of the Committee.

I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments. Once we have responded to the report, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, can return to any of these issues on Report.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to this long list of amendments. I apologised earlier to the Committee that, inevitably, it was going to take time to get through them all.

We are agreed about one thing. The Bill is there to target those who are profiting from organised crime. There is no disagreement in the House about this. It is not a binary choice between the victims or the profiteers. The people they are exploiting need to be protected, but at present, there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of these offences. Again, we are agreed about that; how we do it is what matters. It is the role of committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise these things in detail—even issues such as hygiene kits. That came up as an amendment in the committee from one of its members, who said that the Government should at least examine this. It is on page 67 of the report, which details amendment 8, which inserts “hygiene kits” in Clause 15, thereby extending the list of included items.

I am grateful to the Minister for his responses to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti. This issue can be looked at outside of our proceedings. I will take away the points he has made, and those of all noble Lords who have participated in this excellent debate. I will make a couple of brief remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked a lot about the international agreements that have been entered into. Our duty is to comply with those. They are living documents, open to challenge and amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in pressing the Government, as I have done previously, to let us know as soon as possible, before Report, what their thinking is on Article 8 of the ECHR.

It was not just the ECHR that I referred to in these amendments. We also referred to the protocol against smuggling and Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, published in 2005, to which we are a signatory. These are important questions that we must always benchmark our actions here against. It is not that we are caught in a trap of international agreements; we, as a nation, have entered into them, and they are obligations we must live up to.

As far as the interpretation of the courts is concerned, my noble friend Lord Faulks made a very good point. Just as there needs to be further training—for instance, in lower-tier tribunals, a point we have discussed previously—it is not beyond the ability of our judges to give direction on many of these international conventions, which all of us are very familiar with anyway. Regarding Article 8, the Danish Government and others would not normally be regarded as hostile to international action. Donald Tusk was one of the signatories of the email that the noble Lord, Lord German, referred to earlier—it had no destination but caused quite a lot of controversy inside the Council of Europe and the European Court. It has provoked a debate, which was overdue, on whether that interpretation of Article 8 is correct. We all welcome that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we should go after the people who are monetarising this issue. She is right. She is also right that we have had a fine tradition in this country. She said that it was the world’s apology for the Holocaust to introduce the European Convention. A lot of other factors were involved there, but we all know that British lawyers, British politicians and the Conservative Party leadership at that time were deeply committed to the creation of European scaffold to govern some of these questions. Times have changed, and some of the challenges are different. That is not a reason for walking away from our obligations. It is a reason for standing together with others who want to make sense of these things, so that we protect those who are at risk and ensure that we go after those who are acting in a criminal manner.

I will take back to the Joint Committee the points the Minister has made. I am grateful that he will respond before Report. That will give us a chance to decide on amendments of a similar nature, or others which work in the eyes of the Government. We can continue to discuss this outside Committee, and whether it is possible to bring them back. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, and in conclusion, if we are to deter crossings and illegal entry into this country, surely we do not want to construct a legal system in which acting to facilitate crossings, even of a close family member, is somehow excusable. As we on these Benches have been clear, we need to approach this issue robustly and carve out defences for those who engage in and facilitate this. Let us not forget: criminal activity would directly undermine this capacity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again for the amendments that have been tabled and for the approach of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in relation to them. Again, I think there will be many areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has responded to the debate today.

I reassure noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Dubs, that care has been taken to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs and do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by them. I have said that in other groups, I may say it again in further groups, and I am saying it again in this group: that is the target for government action.

Amendment 46 seeks to amend Clause 14 to ensure that individuals are not criminalised for handling items relating to their own journey, provided they did so solely for personal use and received no financial gain. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that Clause 14 already provides a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses; cases can be assessed individually; and prosecutors will consider the public interest as well as specific guidance relating to immigration crimes, including whether there is clear evidence of a credible common-law defence of duress or duress of circumstances, and whether the immigration offence was committed as a necessary part of a refugee’s journey to the United Kingdom. That will all be done before pursuing charges, with the clear intent—going back to my noble friend Lord Dubs—of targeting smugglers and not those who are exploited by them.

There is a list of humanitarian items that are carved out from these provisions. Items outside this list that facilitate organised immigration crime are easily shared, taken or given to others to hold, further risking creating loopholes, as items used in organising immigration crime can easily be transferred or misrepresented as for personal use. That again goes to the very heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which is that enforcement would be significantly more difficult if the proposed amendments were accepted. These offences are designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster at the preparatory stages of an offence, potentially saving lives at sea and in the back of lorries. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the amendment, which would hamper that objective.

Amendments 46 and 55 aim to add a financial gain element to the “reasonable excuse” defence. Again, I respectfully oppose the amendments. These offences target criminal gangs at an early planning stage when financial gain is not necessarily yet evident. Introducing a requirement in the clauses for financial gain would significantly constrain law enforcement’s ability to intervene early and disrupt organised gangs before a crossing occurs and before money changes hands.

Again, there is complexity in cash flows in these criminal cases, and it is impossible and impractical to exempt those without clear financial gain. Doing so would shift undue burden on to law enforcement to prove gain and would undermine effective prosecution. That would not be appropriate or proportionate, particularly given the life-threatening risks we have seen in the channel, where people smuggling is present. It would also undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to facilitate. Where there is evidence of involvement in organised criminal activity, such as facilitating illegal crossings, through the commission of these offences, prosecution should be possible regardless of whether financial gain can be shown.

I turn to Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Again, I share common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on these matters. Amendment 51 proposes adding phones and chargers to the list of exempt items in Clause 15. Clauses 13 and 14 do not criminalise specific items; they target the supply or handling of items with knowledge or suspicion that they will be used in immigration crime.

The key issue remains intent. Everybody in the Committee today will recognise that phones are commonly used by smuggling gangs to co-ordinate crossings. Law enforcement agencies must retain the ability to act when such items are knowingly supplied for criminal purposes. A blanket exemption would create a significant loophole and weaken our ability to disrupt smuggling operations. Mobile phones are used to organise criminal gangs and therefore it is not practical or feasible to exempt them from the proposals in the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for speaking to Amendments 50 and 62 tabled by my noble friend Lord Browne. The amendments aim to exclude the offences from being considered a “particularly serious crime” under the 1951 refugee convention. The offences would be considered as particularly serious crimes—this is an important point for my noble friend—only if the sentence reaches the 12-month threshold. A court would have to consider all the circumstances of the offence in detail. If it imposed a sentence of more than 12 months, it is right that that is treated as particularly serious. The individual can still show that they are not a danger to the community.

This year alone—this goes to the heart of all the amendments—there have been 14 deaths at sea. I cannot agree that taking part in and providing means and methods for vulnerable people to risk their lives at sea in increasingly overloaded and poor-quality vessels and in the back of transit lorries should not be considered a serious crime. Amendments 50 and 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne aim to exclude those offences as being considered particularly serious under the 1951 refugee convention.

I reassure my noble friend that there is a minimum sentencing requirement for the offence to be categorised as a particularly serious crime. It is right that this offence be treated as a particularly serious crime if the sentence imposed by the court is of at least 12 months, as I just mentioned, as provided by Section 62 of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002. The court will be able to consider carefully whether the offence is appropriate when imposing such a sentence. Also, it is still open to an individual to demonstrate that they did not constitute a danger to the community for the purposes of Article 33(2), thereby retaining protection against the matter being brought before them.

Amendment 56 proposes a statutory defence for those researching a journey for a close family member. Proving close family relationships is very complex and, I contend, is handled best on a case-by-case basis. Clause 16 already includes a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, and each case is assessed individually. Prosecutors—this is key and we have discussed it in earlier groups—will consider the public interest before pursuing charges, with the clear intent of targeting smugglers, not those exploited by them. This is a common theme running through all my responses to the groups of amendments to date—the aim of the UK Government, in co-operation now with authorities from other nations, is to target the smugglers, not those exploited by them.

Amendment 51B would require the Secretary of State to consult organisations assisting asylum seekers before making additions to the list of carved-out articles under this legislation. I know that this is a well-meaning and well-intentioned proposal, but it is not necessary or appropriate in the context of this clause. The articles for use in immigration crime offences concern the prevention of immigration crime and provide the opportunity to act quickly before lives are lost at sea and in the back of refrigerated lorries.

Clause 15 provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain items as carved out from this offence and the option for the Secretary of State to add to this list, but not to remove them without going through full parliamentary process. If we had formal consultation with external organisations before decisions could be made to add an item to the carve-out, that could introduce additional bureaucracy that would delay urgent action.

As noble Lords will know, immigration crime is dynamic and moving. We have seen this weekend how that dynamic movement can take place. The methods used by those who seek to exploit vulnerable individuals are evolving rapidly and the Government must retain the ability and flexibility to respond swiftly and decisively. I assure the Committee that there will be circumstances where, timing and circumstances permitting, we will always want to engage with charitable and voluntary organisations on these changes as appropriate. However, where lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I want to ensure that the objective of saving lives is paramount.

I hope I have answered the points raised by the Committee. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response but hope he will withdraw his amendment, and that noble Lords will reflect on what has been said.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. I understand the ambition he is setting out: that we are going for the smugglers, not the refugees. The problem is that the Bill, as we have been discussing, does not give us that definition clearly up front. In other words, what the Minister has been saying and his intention—I absolutely agree with him—need to be clearly somewhere or other in the Bill.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that he read out the first part of my amendment and then skipped over the second part, which is connected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady May, raise some interesting questions that I hope the Government will be able to address.

Modern slavery is of course an extremely serious issue. As the recent report from the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking—which is most ably chaired by my noble friend—made clear, the effect that this brutal trade can have on the people involved is truly harrowing. It is right that the Government take this opportunity to outline how they will incorporate protections for those who are acting under duress of slavery into the immigration system. I welcome my noble friend’s amendment in so far as it provides the Government with an opportunity to address this important issue.

However, I want to raise a cautious concern about one particular aspect of the amendment, which is that the protection would apply only once someone’s status as having acted under the duress of slavery had been established. I understand that determining this status would involve going through the national referral mechanism, which, as noble Lords across the Committee will be well aware, faces severe backlogs. Not only that but, as the UN themselves has highlighted, far fewer foreign applicants under the NRM actually have a decision made in their favour, suggesting that immigrants are increasingly applying to the NRM on the basis that this will delay any decision to remove them, rather than because they have genuine grounds for a claim. That raises the question of whether the amendment would risk creating another loophole and another incentive for those crossing in small boats to delay any decision on their application in the full knowledge that the NRM mechanism already is severely delayed and backlogged.

It is the duty of the Government to seek to protect those who are under duress of slavery. As I have said, the amendment might risk creating a considerable loophole that could be easily exploited by bad actors. That is not to say that I do not support the intent behind the amendment, but I will be paying close attention to what the Minister has to say on this point.

On Amendment 49, we agree that this is an important provision and that it makes complete sense to be assured that articles will be both protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used and referred to in any future case. As my noble friend has already alluded to, my understanding is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers will already cover this, and that if any seized articles were lost or damaged then that would perhaps be a disciplinary matter for the officer involved. We therefore question whether a protection in the Bill in the form of this amendment is necessary, but the point that my noble friend raises is an important one. We will join her in seeking strong assurances from the Minister that these articles will be protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used in the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for tabling these amendments and instigating this discussion. I am grateful for the efforts that she took as Home Secretary, all those years ago, to establish the first Modern Slavery Act, following the very good process that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, mentioned. As I recall, having been the shadow at the time, that process had Frank Field, among others, chairing cross-party pre-legislative scrutiny efforts, which led to the legislation—the Act whose implementation my right honourable friend the current Home Secretary and I, as Members of Parliament, shadowed at the time.

It is one thing to pass an Act—we have all done that many times in this House and other Houses—but it is quite another to retain what I sense is a lifelong interest and passion for the issue. I say to the noble Baroness, 10 years on, that it is a tribute to her commitment at the time that she continues to do that. I also pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in his absence, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. All four have now formed a sort of coalition—I think we will call them the quartet after the earlier intervention by colleagues—that is taking a real interest in the development of this issue. I was pleased to address, on behalf of the Government, a reception in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago at which the noble Baroness, Lady May, appeared virtually to look at the next stages of tackling this issue.

Having said all that, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the amendments she has tabled today are covered by existing legislation. I am willing to be tested on that, but I hope I can give her that reassurance. She raised these issues at Second Reading and I hoped I had given her such reassurances then.

Amendment 47 seeks to provide a reasonable excuse for articles for use in immigration crime for those who are acting under duress of slavery, a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. I put it to the noble Baroness and the other noble Lords that the protections she is seeking are covered by Section 45 of the very Modern Slavery Act 2015 that was legislated for at that time. Going back to the point mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, Section 45 provides a statutory defence against prosecution where an individual was compelled to commit an offence as a result of their exploitation. That is very clear in the Modern Slavery Act, which—this is my view and that of my legal advisers in the Home Office, and I hope it has been echoed again today—can be interpreted to mean that, in the event of trafficking from modern slavery, all of the provisions of the Bill can be dealt with by that statutory defence. We can debate that, but I hope it will eventually satisfy the noble Baroness’s noble intention in bringing forward the amendment today.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

The trouble with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is that it is 10 years old, and some of it is not as well regarded as it might be. I recently attended an interesting discussion with the Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips, about updating the Modern Slavery Act so that people recognise that it is actually effective.

The Minister will know that the Government are putting into the Crime and Policing Bill a child exploitation clause. Technically, that is covered in the Modern Slavery Act, but they are putting that provision in there because the Act is not being properly regarded. This issue is something else that is not being properly regarded. Although technically it is in Section 45, to which I referred earlier, I am sure the Minister knows that Section 45 is not used in the courts as often as it ought to be, and that is a very practical reason for putting it into the Bill. If the Minister’s Government are prepared to put child exploitation into the Crime and Policing Bill, why can they not put another similar matter into this one?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an important point. I know that she, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady, met Jess Phillips last week. I hoped to join that meeting but parliamentary demands meant that I had to answer on an issue in this House, which meant I could not attend. I know that the committee of this House that produced the modern slavery report has raised a number of suggestions for updating and improving the Modern Slavery Act. My honourable friend Jess Phillips, who has direct responsibility for this issue in her position in the House of Commons as a Minister in the Home Office, is examining all the issues that were brought forward and wishes to make some improvements. The points in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House at some point, extend aspects of the modern slavery legislation regarding child exploitation.

Again, I give the noble and learned Baroness the reassurance that the assessment of our legal teams, and my assessment with Jess, as the Minister, and with other Ministers dealing with the Bill from all aspects of Parliament, concludes that the protections sought are covered by Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We can test that and we can reflect on it outside the Chamber, and the noble and learned Baroness and others can put points to us in response to what I have said, but that is the judgment that we have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he will remember that I asked him some questions about the national referral mechanism. I do not expect an answer now, but will he agree to write to me about that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I was just coming to the noble Lord’s question in my denouement. As I was saying to the noble Baroness, I hope she can reflect on the assurances I have given and withdraw her amendment. If she is not happy, she can return to these issues, but I hope she will reflect upon them. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that I do not have the figures he requested to hand. I can undoubtedly find a person who does have them and get them to him in short order. I will do it before we finish Committee.

With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady May, will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, in his absence, to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, not just for supporting these amendments but for the many years of commitment they have given to tackling modern slavery and supporting the victims and survivors of modern slavery.

I am also particularly grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for bringing her legal mind to bear to the interpretation and use of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Minister was very kind in saying that that Act stood the test of time rather better than some think. It has in large measure stood the test of time, but there are aspects of it, certainly around prosecutions, that are perhaps not being used as well as they might be. Supply chains are also an area we need action on.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remember moving amendments on supply chains during the passage of the original Bill; I think we had a friendly discussion on those at the time.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

I am very conscious that the supply chain issue has been around for some time. I put it to the Minister that, at the time, what was put into the Act was going to receive sufficient support across government to enable us to have something on supply chains in the Act. If he reads the report of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, he will see that we are urging mandating action on supply chains, which he may be pleased to support.

I would like to address a number the of points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about somebody being trafficked across the border having some sort of sign that enables them to start a conversation. One of the challenges is that, very often, people do not realise they are being trafficked into exploitation. They believe they are being brought across to a good job, and then they find they are in exploitation when they get here. They are unlikely to do that or want to do that.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower mentioned the speed of the NRM. That is indeed an issue. I know the Government have put some extra resources into it, but it is a deep concern that a process that was originally intended when introduced to last 45 days can now take 300 to 500 days, which is the period normally quoted, although I think somebody referred earlier to someone being in the NRM for four years. We need to get that down because people deserve to have decisions rather quicker than that. I recognise that that is an issue.

The Minister spoke about what was being held. He referred to documents but, again, we must realise that this is not just about small boats. There are a number of ways people will be trafficked illegally into this country and into exploitation and slavery. My attempt is to cover all these aspects.

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his kind remarks. There are issues around this question, and we are balancing the need and desire to do something for the victims of slavery against avoiding encouraging others. Of course, through the NRM there is a process for assessing if someone genuinely has been enslaved and trafficked into exploitation. That should, if the process works well, weed out criminal gang members who claim such modern slavery. That addresses the loophole point that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower raised.

It is very tempting to say, as has been said to me by some colleagues, that all of this just creates loopholes. But I say to noble Lords that if we are genuinely concerned that slavery exists in our world today, in 2025, and that people are being brought into our country into slavery—that they are being trafficked by criminal gangs which make money out of their expectations, hopes and misery when they face exploitation and slavery—and if we feel that that is wrong, we should do something about it. We draw our legislation up carefully so that we do our best not to create loopholes. But we cannot simply say that we abandon those in slavery, or those who are being exploited, because we are worried about a loophole.

Having said that, I heard what the Minister said about other pieces of legislation. I will go away and reflect on those, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, before I address the content of this statutory instrument, I will briefly provide some background. The fight against money laundering is an important element of the Government’s missions to deliver safer streets and kick-start economic growth. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the public/private partnership which is central to the UK’s response to economic crime and which sets the international standard in this area. With approximately 1,200 UK law enforcement operations supported, over 400 arrests made, nearly £250 million seized and restrained and more than 100 alerts published, the partnership demonstrates the power of a whole-system response which combines the capabilities, resources and expertise of the public and private sectors. However, with the threat ever evolving, we must target our resources to where they will have the greatest impact.

Under the economic crime plan 2, the Government, law enforcement and the private sector have worked together to consider how public/private resource can be better directed to maximise our collective impact against the threat. The statutory instrument before the Committee today is one of the first outputs from this work. Quite simply, it raises the existing financial threshold for two exemptions which apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. The aim is to move finite resource away from low-value activity towards higher-value investigations and to increase the effectiveness of the suspicious activity reporting regime.

This uplift in the threshold will enable law enforcement resource to focus on higher priority reports that provide greater opportunities for asset denial and disruption of criminal activity. The proposal before the Committee today will also free up business resources which can be redirected towards high-value activity that may have a greater impact on the threat. The measure is further expected to reduce the impact on banking customers by reducing the number of instances of legitimate customers being unable to access their accounts, particularly where no further action is taken.

The first exemption applies to acts in operation of account, such as paying expenses, by deposit taking bodies—in essence, banks and building societies—and to electronic money and payment institutions. The second exemption applies in the instance of a business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector ending a relationship with a customer and paying away any money or property to the customer. This means that for transactions below this threshold, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector do not need to submit defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, or DAML SARs as I will refer to them.

A DAML SAR is submitted to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit by a person proposing to deal with suspected criminal property which may make them liable for one of the principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. By submitting a DAML, a person can avoid committing one of the principal money laundering offences by obtaining consent or deemed consent for the act they propose to carry out; for example, as I mentioned earlier, a customer’s transaction to pay their mortgage. The DAML provides information to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit and prevents the business carrying out the activity referenced in the request until the UK Financial Intelligence Unit gives a consent decision, or seven working days pass, after which businesses can assume they have consent.

In 2023, the threshold was raised to £1,000 due to the rising volume of DAML regulation procedures, and the regulatory burdens on businesses to submit a DAML suspicious activity report, as well as burdens on law enforcement to review and the delay to customers who must often wait seven days for their transaction to process. Those are all good reasons why the original threshold was raised to £1,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all parliamentarians will agree that tackling money laundering is a shared mission across both Houses to create a safer society and support our economy. I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced the economic crime levy, which raises some £100 million per year from the anti-money laundering sector. I am pleased that today’s proposals build on this legacy of tackling money laundering.

These proposals will raise the threshold for two exemptions that apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. This will reduce the resourcing burden on law enforcement and enable our officers to dedicate more time to activities that yield greater asset denial and to disrupting criminal operations more effectively.

If we look at the number of defence against money laundering reports submitted to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit in 2024, we can see why there is a case for raising the threshold. In 2024, 23,000 reports were submitted relating to transactions between £1,000 and £3,000. Of these, only 182 were refused, leading to £209,565 of assets denied. This represents 0.1% of all assets denied as a result of defence against money laundering reports in 2024.

It is both necessary and appropriate that we ease the pressure on enforcement agencies at this level and allow resources to be focused where they can have the greatest impact on tackling the most serious crimes. This policy area has been under review following the threshold rise in 2023, and a targeted consultation was carried out on money laundering reports. The outcome of the consultation shows strong support for increasing the threshold to at least £3,000. Respondents cited multiple benefits, including a reduction in the reporting burden, the reallocation of resources to higher-value investigations, and improved outcomes for customers, particularly by reducing the number of legitimate account users who face access issues. Raising the threshold to £3,000 is supported by the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, which believes it will also reduce the reporting burden on business and free up its resources to focus more on high-value activity.

Although the case is clear to raise the threshold, the Government must also be aware of the potential risks of criminals splitting transactions to come under the threshold. This was raised by a respondent in the consultation. Although mechanisms are in place, this must be a consideration. I ask the Minister to confirm that crime rates under that £3,000 level will be monitored and that the threshold will be changed again if it becomes necessary.

In conclusion, I support today’s proposals, which will help to tackle money laundering. There is no place for crime groups attempting to launder their illicit funds through the UK financial system. It is right that we prioritise resourcing for the highest crimes.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for having a shared approach to money laundering. He is right to point to the fact that there has been a consultation on this matter. He is also right to point out that, in essence, there is a shared understanding between all parties that the money laundering threshold needed to be reviewed. The figure of £3,000 that we have put in this order sets a balance. We will always keep it under review—there is potential for higher figures, which have been discussed as part of the consultation—but we have settled on a threshold of £3,000, which strikes the appropriate balance between reducing low-value reporting and mitigating the potential loss of asset denial outcomes.

The noble Lord is right to say that we need to ensure that we examine the risk of criminals splitting transactions into smaller amounts and seeking to avoid detection. The raising of the threshold is data led. It addresses an acute consumer duty risk and creates capacity in firms to tackle higher-value, more societally impacting economic crimes, all of which outweighs the residual risk of criminals circumventing the threshold limit as of now. The noble Lord was right to point to the very low level of transactions of interest between £1,000 and £3,000 in the previous regime, which resulted in further examination.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. I can assure him that we will keep all matters under review, including the performance of this threshold, but I take and welcome his considered support. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 June be approved.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 30 June. I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed. They are Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement. The proscription of these three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.

It may be helpful to noble Lords if I first set out some background to the power of the proscription order. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned with terrorism. This means that an organisation commits or participates in terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned with terrorism. Noble Lords will, I am sure, welcome knowing that some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral. It judges an organisation not on its politics but on its actions and the actions that it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of “terrorism” was established in law a quarter of a century ago. It has stood the test of time and had extensive scrutiny since.

The legislation currently has three specific limbs. The first is that the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. The second is that the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public, or a section of the public. The third is that the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, a number of whom still sit in this House, have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools available to the Government. I reassure the House that any decision to proscribe is taken with great care following rigorous consideration. Jonathan Hall KC, in his report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2022, reaffirmed that principle.

We have three organisations before the House. I turn to the measure and shall speak to the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in the order in which they are taken.

First, Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as “MMC”, is an insidious, white supremacist, neo-Nazi organisation that operates online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives as anti-social, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants—all to further its ideology and degrade human society through violence. The Government have assessed that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on how to attack someone fatally with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. Members and non-members share MMC’s material online, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology.

I regret to the tell the House that on 22 May, a 21 year-old Georgian national considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, who is known as “Commander Butcher”, was extradited to the United States—by regret, I mean that we have go to the extent of extraditing somebody—and is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. In the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York, targeted specifically at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. I hope that case in New York illustrates that MMC has a truly transnational audience, including in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based; if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror they should be dealt with.

Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online. Frankly, the Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to help deter and divert individuals from engaging with MMC’s violent content and will send a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against groups such as these to keep our country safe.

I turn to the second group, which is Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy; nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country—and, indeed, across both Houses of Parliament—for more than five decades.

I want to be clear, and I hope that this will help noble Lords in their consideration: proscription of Palestine Action does not seek to ban protests that support Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.

Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are cornerstones in our democracy. I have protested; I know of many other Members who have protested against various things in our lives, and we have done so fairly and openly. It is a fundamental right, and this Government will respect and protect those rights. I will always defend the rights of British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful processes and to stand up for the causes in which they believe.

Essential as these rights are, they do not provide a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence. The attack on Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked widespread shock and anger, but the reality is that this is just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. Despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary, the group’s own materials have stated that the organisation is not non-violent. This is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks.

The Government have to consider all the evidence, and the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, have concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. I hope that the House will understand that I am not able to comment on specific intelligence or go into details about incidents that are currently sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make those positions clear to the House.

Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support our efforts in Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence enterprise. Over time, but most importantly and notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Some of Palestine Action’s own materials state: “We are not a non-violent organisation and we have specific targets”. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the United Kingdom, and has pledged to escalate its campaign.

This pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks on Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and, last year, on Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises armed with a variety of weapons and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds-worth of criminal damage.

As the House will have heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against individuals who were responding at the scene at the time. During Palestine Action’s attack against Thales and the defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million of damage, including parts of essential submarine materials. Palestine Action has caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in an area when staff were evacuating from that area. The sheriff who passed custodial sentences for the perpetrators said:

“Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which rightly moves to proscribe the group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under UK law.

The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, as many noble Lords have expressed here this afternoon. It is a right that generations have fought to protect, but there is, and must be, a clear line between legitimate protest and violent coercion and wanton damage. Palestine Action has crossed that line repeatedly and deliberately, as its actions at RAF Brize Norton last month, which we have heard about, made absolutely clear.

This is not a question of silencing dissent, nor of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices; it is a move to uphold the rule of law and our true freedoms. It is intended to protect the public from targeted, dangerous and ideologically motivated criminal acts. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has tabled an amendment to regret the proscription of Palestine Action. She set out that she is concerned that civil disobedience is being misinterpreted. We on this side are clear that Palestine Action’s actions do in fact cross a line. Civil disobedience is one thing, but breaking into, attacking and seriously damaging our national defence infrastructure is another, as was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

If the noble Baroness does not want to take my word for it, maybe she will listen to the words of the group itself, previously cited by the Minister. Palestine Action’s own training materials have stated that it is

“not a non-violent organisation”.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK and has pledged to escalate its campaign. A group that openly admits its intention to be violent cannot be disregarded as a threat in the way that the noble Baroness proposed. A group that advances its views through violence is itself a direct threat to the integrity of free speech in our country.

It is clear that Palestine Action’s entire modus operandi is to use direct, violent action in pursuit of political ends. Its members do not operate through petitions, campaigns or democratic engagement; they operate through sabotage, criminal damage and threats. They have repeatedly targeted companies involved in the UK defence sector, often without regard for legality. They do so with the explicit intention of coercing change through unlawful means.

The group was established on 30 July 2020, when activists broke into and vandalised the interior of the UK headquarters of Elbit Systems in London. From the very beginning, members of this group have been intent on causing damage and have acted to assert their views through criminal violence. Is that not the rightful definition of a terrorist organisation?

Time and time again, Palestine Action’s activities have endangered third parties. They have vandalised property, occupied buildings and attacked not only private companies but critical components of our national defence. Its tactics are both calculated and militant.

When a group pursues its aims, not through democratic discourse, but through organised campaigns of destruction and violence, and strives to terrorise legitimate businesses and opinion-formers, its acts are those of terrorism as defined by the law. This order does not criminalise views; it outlaws those who use terror and violence to force their views on others.

To fail to act would send a message that violent extremism would be tolerated if it is dressed up as enthusiastic activism. We cannot allow such ambiguity. We must be consistent. This country has proscribed far-right groups that promote violence under the banner of nationalism; it did so in the 1930s against the Blackshirts. We cannot allow such abhorrent methods today. We must apply the same standard to all who use violence and intimidation and who seek to advance political causes by criminal means against law-abiding members of society.

This proscription does not ban support for Palestinian rights or peaceful demonstrations; it is a necessary step to uphold public safety and the democratic rule of law. There are other voices lawfully making the case for Palestine and Palestinians; Palestine Action is not one of them. We support this order in its entirety because we believe in protecting the public, defending our democracy and drawing a firm line against those who would use violence to impose their political will. We therefore welcome the Government bringing this order and are pleased to support it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to what has been a thorough and testing debate. Having introduced the order on behalf of the Government, it is my responsibility to respond to the points that have been made today. All three organisations in the order before us—this is a very important point for Members to remember—are subject to the same tests under the 2000 Act that this House and the House of Commons passed and put in place for 25 years, along with, to date, around 80 proscription orders that were passed under similar tests.

This debate is not about whether you support the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland, whether you are appalled at the actions of the Israeli Government, or whether you think the Israeli Government are acting fairly and proportionately following the Hamas kidnappings and murders. This is not about that issue. It is not, dare I say it, about the right to protest. I served with my noble friend Lord Hain in Northern Ireland for two years, and I have some admiration for the way that he has approached some of the issues that I shared. I said at the outset that I have been carried out of a building for protesting the apartheid regime, I protested against the fascist regime in Chile and I have been on a picket line during the miners’ strike. I have been involved in protests across my political life that have been fair and open, but not those that have not led to harassment, intimidation, violence and criminal damage.

Noble Lords in this debate have, dare I say it, fallen into two camps—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who asked legitimate questions that I will return to. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Beamish, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, Lord Austin of Dudley, Lord Turnberg, Lord Carlile, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and the Official Opposition have all, in one way or another, supported the approach that the Government have taken.

From this Front Bench, I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has tabled an important amendment that has generated this debate—which is an important part of the democracy that I believe we should stand up for. She has had support from my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Bennett. Again, she has put forward a legitimate point of view, but I want to draw noble Lords back to the essence of this debate.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe organisations that she believes are concerned with terrorism. There is a clear definition of terrorism in that Act, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, has stood the test of time:

“‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action … designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public”

and the actions used or threatened must involve

“serious violence against a person … serious damage to property … endangers a person’s life … creates a serious risk to … health … or … is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system”.

I say again that all three organisations in this order are being judged on their actions as to whether they are committing or participating in acts of terrorism, preparing for terrorism, promoting terrorism or are otherwise concerned with terrorism. If that statutory test is met, factors that the Home Secretary takes into account include the nature and scale of the organisation, the specific threat, the extent of the presence and the need to have support from members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

The Home Secretary does not sit in 2 Marsham Street and say, “What’s happening today? Should I proscribe these organisations?” There is a decision, which is never taken lightly. That decision has robust processes in place to ensure the evidence is available and is carefully reviewed and considered. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been taken with significant considerations, which include technical assessments, deep engagement with the subject matter, experts from across government, policy officials, law enforcement and a proscription advisory group that makes recommendations to the Home Secretary to determine whether that proscription is legitimate.

Music Festivals: Hate Speech

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to monitor and control hate speech at music festivals.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister has been very clear that there is no excuse for hate speech. Performers making threats or inciting violence should not be given a platform at any event. The Culture Secretary has confirmed that she will be having conversations with the BBC and festival organisers to ensure that action is taken to prevent this happening again. There is also robust legislation in place to deal with threatening, abusive, harassing behaviour and incitement to hatred. The Government will support the police in taking strong action against these abhorrent crimes wherever they occur.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, when it was obvious that the law was being broken by these artists, the BBC should have immediately stopped the live feed? Does he agree that very senior people in the BBC must now take personal responsibility for this? I appreciate that the matter is actually being investigated by the local police, but surely if artists such as Pascal Robinson-Foster, who incited this dreadful violence, murder and hatred by chanting “Death to the IDF”, do not face the same consequences and treatment as Lucy Connolly, every fair-minded person in this country will conclude that we do indeed have two-tier justice.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, let me just say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Culture Secretary is in urgent conversation with the BBC and has requested urgent clarification on what action was taken and why it was not taken in the way in which the noble Lord has mentioned. If he will allow me, I will leave that at that.

With regard to prosecutions, he will know that Avon and Somerset police are investigating these allegations. I think it is clear to see that the evidence is there and that those comments were made, but I do not think it is appropriate for a Minister to give a running commentary on police action. I also say to him that I do not accept the challenge of two-tier policing. I think the police have a responsibility to act on the legislation that has been put in place by both Houses of Parliament and which is very clear on harassment, on incitement to hatred and on the type of incidents that have occurred, which are potentially, in any of those circumstances, criminal actions. The police have to follow the evidence, and that is what I believe they will do in this case and what they did in the case of the lady that the noble Lord mentioned, who was sentenced following a police investigation.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former BBC producer. In light of the events at Glastonbury last weekend, the BBC has put out a statement saying that

“we will look at our guidance around live events so that we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air”.

Would the Minister encourage a longer delay when the BBC is live streaming to allow time to stop unacceptable behaviour being broadcast?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think that that is an eminently sensible suggestion. The BBC is independent of government. My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary has spoken and will continue to speak to the BBC. There needs to be a revision of the guidance and a review of what has happened in this incident, but I think that it is a sensible and obvious suggestion.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention, and indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, to the article by Hugo Rifkind in the Times yesterday. Hugo Rifkind actually spent five days at Glastonbury and, right at the end of the article, he points out that he is a Jew. But he points out that Glastonbury was not a hate fest; it was an amazing broadcasting achievement by a public service broadcaster to cover one of the most successful popular music events in the world. We should not simply be going after the director-general’s head. I remind the Front Bench opposite that one of the most disastrous decisions of the Blair Government was to instigate the loss of Greg Dyke as director-general of the BBC over the dodgy dossier. It is very easy for the pack to go after the director-general, but the important issue here, as has just been said, is how we get the benefit of live broadcasting without the perils of second-rate artists causing trouble to get the headlines.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that Glastonbury is a splendid, multicultural festival, celebrating the best in British and international music, and is a showcase. He will know that the organisers of Glastonbury and Emily Eavis, who is now the main organiser, on behalf of her father who founded the festival, have also issued a statement condemning the comments that were made by the individual and are now being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police. So, we can have a good festival, but we can still have within it an appalling potential act which needs to be investigated. I still think, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture still thinks, that it is important that we ask serious questions of the BBC about how it managed that incident when it was clear that it would potentially lead to the type of incident that the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, has raised in the House today.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, here we have an artist who gleefully spouted hate speech and incited violence, the largest festival organiser in the country who gave him a platform and a public service broadcaster that has yet again showed scant regard for the Jewish community, which has totally lost trust in the BBC. Does my noble friend the Minister have confidence in the senior leadership of the BBC to properly grip this issue, to implement material changes and to make sure that this does not happen again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend goes right to the heart of the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Individuals from any community, in this case the Jewish community, have the right to enjoy their lives without intimidation, threat or harassment, or indeed calls for death to be implemented on sections of a community. There is a role for peaceful protest and for argument about who and what happens in the Palestine-Israeli situation; that is perfectly legitimate. It is not legitimate to move that into harassment, intimidation or death threats.

With regard to the BBC, as I have mentioned, my right honourable friend is in active negotiation and discussion with the chair of the BBC. I am sure she will make further statements. Indeed, this very morning at DCMS Questions in the House of Commons, she answered further questions on this. There are certainly lessons to be learned, but I reassure my noble friend that members of the Jewish community, and indeed members of any community who face harassment and intimidation, deserve the support of the law, which is why Avon and Somerset Police are currently investigating to see whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Hamas attacks of 7 October targeted innocent people attending a music festival, so it was horrifying to see the events at Glastonbury. Yesterday, during a protest in Whitehall, protesters were repeating the very same chant used by those performers at Glastonbury and currently under investigation by police. Can the Minister confirm that the Government share the view that this calling for the death of Israeli soldiers is incitement to violence, and can he confirm that, in the interest of applying the law equally, leading on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Bellingham, the same action will be taken against those who incite violence on our streets, not just those who do so from a stage?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can again reassure the noble Lord. Legislation is in place, and his Government previously and this Government now want to see that legislation implemented when the police judge that criminal thresholds have been crossed. It is not for Ministers to determine whether a criminal threshold has been crossed; it is for the police to present a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, for the Crown Prosecution Service to put that to the courts and for a jury to convict or otherwise on the basis of evidence supplied. But I am supportive of his general aim. It is important that harassment, intimidation, threats and calls for death are seen as the serious criminal events that they potentially are. Therefore, it is right and proper that in this case Avon and Somerset Police follow that through, and it is right and proper that in any event, be it at a music festival, a football ground, a street protest or anything else, people have the right to protest but not the right to threaten, harass, intimidate or call for death.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I suggest to the Minister that it would be a sensible, practical measure for he and Ministers at DCMS to get together to produce a bespoke website aimed at festival organisers, performers and audiences, so that they understand what hate crimes are, what is and is not acceptable, and what will be the consequences if they choose to break criminal laws that have been created by all Governments in the last 15 years.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a helpful suggestion. The noble Lord will know that this is a fluid discussion both with the BBC and internally within DCMS and the Home Office. I am repeating myself, but I reiterate that it is for the police to determine criminal action, but it is certainly for the Government, be it DCMS, the Home Office, jointly or both, in conjunction with other agencies, such as the BBC, to make sure that there is wide dissemination and understanding of where that criminal line is drawn. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestion, which I will reflect on outside the Chamber today.

Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 2 April and 15 May be approved.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.

Motions agreed.

Police: Facial Recognition Technology

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to regulate the procurement and use of facial recognition technology by the police.

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

My Lords, facial recognition is a valuable tool that helps the police identify offenders and protect the public. While its use is governed by existing laws, the Government are considering whether further legal clarity is needed in order to maintain public trust and confidence.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend. Since the groundbreaking Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in which noble Lords opposite may take some pride, it has been decided that in this country police power is principally a matter for Parliament and statute, not for incremental development by the courts and common law. Can it therefore be right that successive Governments have allowed the procurement of this most intrusive technology from any company or Government in the world, and its deployment to be a matter of discretion for the 43 police forces in England and Wales?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a range of legislation that provides protections for the public at large, including data protection legislation and equality and human rights law, along with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice Live Facial Recognition, the Information Commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. If that is not enough for my noble friend, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently said that she wants to see a clear legal framework in place for facial recognition. We aim to set out plans very shortly, but it is an important tool and it does help identify perpetrators of crime.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important tool, but the reality is that recently, there have been reports in the press about two women who were stopped by the police for shoplifting, through the use of facial recognition technology. There is an issue here about the algorithms used in facial recognition technology, and inequality and accessibility, particularly in relation to black and ethnic minority people, who are more likely to be misjudged as a result of this technology.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There has been some discussion of the algorithms and their use. There were discussions with South Wales Police in particular, who were dealing with that issue. Those discussions resulted in the National Physical Laboratory testing the algorithm used by South Wales Police, and it found no statistically significant difference in performance on either gender or race. However, it is for those very reasons that the Home Secretary wants to examine the legal framework and, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned, to make sure that there is clarity and oversight, and that the plethora of organisations I mentioned at the start of this Question examine this in a way that makes for effective oversight and clarity for police forces.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, our concerns should extend beyond just facial recognition technology to the wide range of technologies coming down the track, some of which are very intrusive. Many are already being used by police forces in other countries. Will the Government consider appointing an independent regulator to establish clear guardrails around this new technology, so that any of the AI technology that the police want to use will be proportionate and necessary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I understand that people want to ensure that there is a legal framework for interpreting not just facial recognition but other such things. As I have mentioned, a plethora of organisations are looking at different aspects of regulation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to look at that and to give clearer guidance on the use of what I still maintain is an effective tool. If this helps stop crime and identifies potential individuals through intelligence-led policing, then it is a good thing.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but he did not actually answer the part about procurement of facial recognition technology and so on. For the most part, the many accountability organisations that he listed do not actually examine procurement, and if they do it is only in the context of compliance with procurement requirements and not necessarily with, for example, considerations of national security.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I tried to answer my noble friend’s initial Question as best as I could. Procurement is another issue we are looking at. In the Government’s forward look to policing, we are considering what areas of work we can bring in centrally in terms of the guidance and support for the 43 police forces currently operating. Again, without pre-empting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s review, one possibility is giving greater guidance on procurement and issues such as facial recognition technology and other forms of preventive activity by police forces.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, a US Government study suggests that facial recognition algorithms are far less accurate in identifying African-American and Asian faces than Caucasian faces, and that African and Asian women are 10 to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than Caucasian ones. The study identified 99 developers, including Intel, Microsoft, Toshiba and the Chinese firms Tencent and DiDi Chuxing, as potential problems in this area of procurement. What research are the UK Government going to commission on this, and how are these firms to be treated for the purposes of procurement by police forces in this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend touches on important issues and again, I refer to the point I made earlier to the noble Baroness. A survey of the existing use of facial recognition technology estimated that there was no discrepancy between gender and race. My noble friend shows slight dissatisfaction with that potential outcome, and I say to him that those are the very factors we want to look at in the guidance my right honourable friend is considering bringing forward. Self-evidently, if we are going to use facial recognition technology, it needs to be accurate, regulated, proportionate, intelligence-led and organised in a way that does not discriminate against sex, race or any other characteristic.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, noble Lords have had the opportunity twice in the last month to be briefed by the Met Police on facial recognition. On both occasions, including when Minister Johnson from the other end was present, it was clear, as the Met admitted, that it does not have clear oversight, which the Minister also admitted in an earlier answer. When are the Government going to provide some clear regulations? In what other area of public-facing policing do the police make up their own rules?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is interesting that the noble Baroness mentions that she has been to a meeting with Minister Johnson and the Metropolitan Police. That is part of a regular series of stakeholder engagement meetings being undertaken by the Policing Minister with the police, current regulators, civil society groups and others. The purpose of those discussions is to gauge the sort of opinion that the noble Baroness has brought forward now, so that we can, as I have said, look at the police using facial recognition technology in a framework set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness may be impatient, but the issue has been identified by the Home Office and actioned by the Home Secretary, and we will bring forward proposals in due course to try to resolve the various tensions put to me in the Chamber this afternoon.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, next to North Korea, the UK rates as one of the countries with the greatest surveillance presence—which, I might add, is no bad thing in my book. We heard from the Government that they are exploring whether legislation on facial recognition technology is necessary. What steps are they taking to address the great deal of public concern that clearly exists about this issue? How might this tie in with the Government’s position on ID cards?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for a range of surveillance methods. CCTV, for example, is one of the greatest crime prevention tools brought in in the last 30 years. It shows what happened at an event, not what might have been perceived to have happened, so it is very valuable. With DNA, CCTV and, potentially, facial recognition technology, progress is made through public confidence; and the Peelian principle of the police having the trust of the community is paramount. Going back to question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that is why we have consulted to get a range of views on this issue before potentially bringing forward better regulation to meet the very issue my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has raised.

As to ID cards, when I was last a Home Office Minister, in 2009-10, we had ID cards; in fact, I had ID card number 3, I think. It proved to be useless because the Government he supported abolished ID cards in around 2011. If he wishes to bring them back, that is a debate we can have, and I look forward to engaging with him on it in due course. But it was not me who abolished them.