Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Empey

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has given us a foretaste of the consideration we will give to Amendment 206, tabled by her noble friend Lady Hamwee and to which I have added my name, which is about Europol. I agree with what she said. I also agree with the interventions made by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke on behalf of his noble friend Lord Browne, about the importance of consultation. Of course, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. She has no reason to fear; no one will ever accuse her of being pompous. She was right to remind us about the importance of the use of words, drawing our attention to “irregular” and “illegal”.

I will speak to Amendment 7, moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on his behalf and that of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which spells out what the duties of the commander should be in

“reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and … increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings”.

In some ways it seems almost otiose to include this in the Bill, as those are clearly the main reasons why the Government brought it forward in the first place, but I understand the need sometimes to use Bills as a form of semaphore to send out signals and why the Opposition Front Bench might wish to do that.

As the Minister knows, I apologised for being unable to speak at Second Reading because a group of us from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, were in Strasbourg to talk about, among other things, interpretations of Article 8 of the ECHR, prosecutions, the number of illegal crossings—as referred to in this amendment—and the criminal gangs manipulating and profiteering on the backs of often desperate people. During that visit, we met, among others, Tim Eicke KC, who has been the British judge in the European court for the past nine years. As noble Lords will know, the Government have put forward the names of three others who will take his place. I am glad to say that he has told me that he is willing to come to your Lordships’ House when he returns in September to share with us many of the experiences that he has had over these past nine years.

The European court and the Council of Europe are not our enemies; some of your Lordships were able to participate in the debate that I moved on behalf of the Cross Benches a few weeks ago on the European Convention on Human Rights—its origins, which we have been celebrating as it is its 75th anniversary, and its importance in this day and age. The Council of Europe and the European convention are inextricably linked. I wanted members of our committee to evaluate and understand that, because if one were to leave the convention it would mean also leaving the Council of Europe and disentangling ourselves from many of the things that I believe will help us ensure that the number of illegal crossings will be reduced and the number of prosecutions increased, because we have to do these things across borders and with our neighbours. If we do not, we will certainly not stem the staggering numbers of people leaving their homelands to make these dangerous crossings.

The Council of Europe and the court shared our concerns in all the discussions that we had. These are not our enemies. We discussed the exploitation and displacement of a staggering 122 million people—a number that has nearly doubled in the past decade. The number of refugees and persons in need of international protection reached over 42 million, while the number of internally displaced people rose to around 74 million. More than two-thirds of refugees originated from just six countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, South Sudan, Sudan and Venezuela. A rough but telling extrapolation from these figures suggests that around one in every 67 people on earth has been forcibly displaced. These people are the shadow which hangs over our debate on this amendment and others today.

On 20 June, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on this Bill. It runs to over 80 pages and I commend it to your Lordships. It is available in the Printed Paper Office. At paragraph 13, we remarked:

“It was not within the scope of this inquiry to look at wider issues such as the root causes of the refugee crisis or proposals for offering safe and legal routes to those in need of protection. Whilst this Bill focuses exclusively on tackling organised immigration crime, we encourage the Government to seek to address the underlying root causes which are fuelling the global refugee crisis”.


We cannot dodge that challenge. I strongly agree with the UNHCR, which, in its recent analysis of global trends, was emphatic that, for meaningful progress to be made,

“we must address the root causes”.

It is a point that I have repeatedly—perhaps some would say tediously—made in your Lordships’ House. Simply blaming international humanitarian law will not be part of the solution.

To be clear, the Joint Committee welcomes the Bill’s overall aims to deter organised crime and prevent loss of life at sea. Of course, we would therefore agree with the terms of this amendment as it is drafted. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure that a legislative framework is in place to help eradicate this terrible and dangerous criminality, but we will not do that by diminishing our obligations to uphold international conventions and commitments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, does an admirable job in his role at the Home Office and I join others in paying tribute to him. I have been deeply impressed by the work he does and it is good to have got to know him over the distance. The Minister knows as well as I do that, if offences are applied too broadly, refugees, victims of people smuggling and modern slavery are being put at risk of being criminalised rather than the smugglers. We have to help the victims as well as tackle the smugglers; it is not a question of one or the other. The Bill needs to target those who are profiting from organised immigration crime. 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 the new offences. We are united in wishing to reduce the number of illegal crossings, but we are wary of enacting laws which could have unforeseeable consequences.

I will return to some of these points in later groups. I will try not to be repetitive—we have to make progress on this Bill. I welcome the debate we have had so far on this group and the spirit in which it has been conducted. It is admirable, and far better than some of the exchanges that we had in the previous Parliament, both in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on the Floor of the House. I hope, as we proceed, that we will keep these two objectives in our sights: first, to tackle the illegality of those who are putting lives at risk on a daily basis and, secondly, the importance of protecting those who are so vulnerable.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but I did attend the pre-brief that the Minister kindly gave to Peers.

On Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I would be surprised if such meetings were not on the agenda of anybody holding the position. I have no difficulty with the concept of putting it in the Bill, but I assume it would be a routine level of co-operation that you would expect. However, if she feels it necessary to insist that it is in the Bill, I personally have no objection to it.

As I said to the Minister, my concern is not with the Bill itself but with what is not in it; that is my biggest worry. We have just heard figures about the international situation and, of course, we require an international negotiation to try to solve an international problem. That is why I am surprised that the Government are refusing even to talk to our allies about the 1951 refugee convention. I asked the Government last August and again a few weeks ago, and they refuse to enter into discussions with our allies on that. I would have thought it was a relatively sensible place to start, because the convention was created after World War Two and the world has changed. The problem is highlighted by what we have just been discussing. International aid is obviously another component and, of course, for economic reasons, we are moving in the opposite direction. There is a contradiction at the core of it all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a really important point about the importance of looking again at the things we committed ourselves to in the circumstances in which those were signed. I reassure him that the Joint Committee takes that view too. While we were in Strasbourg, we discussed a letter which had just been sent by nine different Governments, led by Denmark and Donald Tusk’s Poland—which could hardly be regarded as being anti-international law or on the far right of politics—urging the Council of Europe and the European court to look again at the interpretation of things such as Article 8. I know that is the position of the Government, too. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will hear more from the Government about what it actually is that they would like to see reformed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Minister will be aware that, of course, the ECHR has particular connotations for me and Northern Ireland and how we negotiated the Good Friday agreement. Equally, how its terms are being interpreted, within the United Kingdom internally in particular, gives me cause for great concern. No agreement should be unable to be reviewed or looked at with life experience and the passage and flux of time. All I am saying is that the Government need to do both. The refugee convention of 1951 is another component part of it.

Coming back to the point about the powers of the commander, I believe it has to be the Government that set the strategic objectives. If we are not careful, we are also in danger of having too many cooks here. We have Border Force, this new organisation, the Government themselves, the police and all sorts of people involved, indeed including Interpol operating internationally. My anxiety about all of this is that successive Governments and Parliaments—we are all responsible—were all part of the business model of ruthless people who exploit and take money from unfortunate individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

On the other hand, there are our own failings internally about our record-keeping. I do not believe that we really know who is in this country. We do not know how many Governments are putting potential sleeper cells into our country, and we do not really know who leaves and when. Boats are not the only method of irregularly or illegally getting into this country; the old-fashioned back of the lorry and other means are still there and have to be taken into account.

We have a huge task ahead of us, but I say to the Minister that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have substance. I do not see anything wrong with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it seems a reasonably sensible thing to do, and I would have no issues with it at all. However, I remind the Minister that, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the Government in setting goals, and it is within that that we should look at how a commander operates, because that person cannot simply exist in splendid isolation.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Empey

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord today in Committee. I apologise to the Committee, as, although I attended some of the Second Reading debate, duties elsewhere in the House prevented me from being able to be present for the Minister’s reply. I therefore did not speak at that stage and I crave the indulgence of the Committee in speaking today.

Noble Lords might know that I currently have before the House a Private Member’s Bill which has received a Second Reading. It enjoyed all-party support and would provide funding for research—to which the noble and gallant Lord just referred—into the causes of mesothelioma, a disease which the Government themselves predict will take a further 60,000 British lives. We have the highest incidence of mesothelioma anywhere in the world. No effective treatment exists; there is no cure and once diagnosed, the average patient dies within a few months.

On introducing that Bill, and in relation to our Armed Forces, I said that,

“the failure of the 2014 Act to include provision for compensation for our servicemen who die of mesothelioma is a glaring anomaly. The British Legion, the Royal Navy & Royal Marines Charity, the Royal Navy Royal Marines Widows’ Association, the Royal Naval Association and others all support calls for change”.—[Official Report, 20/11/15; col. 385.]

I contrasted at the time the position of a 63 year-old civilian, who might expect to receive around £180,000 in compensation, compared with a veteran’s entitlement to a year’s worth of war pension which, paid at the maximum rate for a non-married naval veteran, amounts to just £31,000. I argued then that veterans should be offered compensation at least equal to that which the courts and the Government have decided that civilians deserve. The unequal treatment of our servicemen and servicewomen amounts to a serious breach of the Armed Forces covenant, which is supposed to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged because of their service.

I am particularly grateful, therefore, that the department has recognised that this is an anomaly that needs to be rectified, and I strongly welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said to the Committee a few moments ago. Of course, this echoes what his honourable friend in another place, the Parliamentary Undersecretary, recently told the House of Commons. He will also know that there was not just that anomaly: there was an anomaly within the anomaly in that a very small group of people—some 60—had been excluded from the scheme because of the way in which the timeline in the announcement fell. It is particularly good that the noble Earl has been able to say today that that will be removed—that the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord West, has put before the Committee will be realised.

The noble Earl will also know, especially given his previous duties at the Department of Health, that this is a disease that does not have a cure and needs much more basic research. He will also know that until the mid-1960s, blue asbestos—crocidolite—was widely used in the insulation of Royal Navy vessels. In consequence, many Royal Navy personnel have died of mesothelioma, particularly those working in boiler rooms and in engineering trades but also those on board ships during refits.

Professor Julian Peto, in an analysis for the Royal British Legion, estimates that a further 2,500 Royal Navy personnel will die of mesothelioma between now and 2047. On 8 December 2015 I asked the noble Earl in a Parliamentary Question how the Government intend,

“to assist members of the armed forces who are diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future; and what assessment they have made of whether those individuals should receive financial support at least equivalent to that of civilians diagnosed with the disease”.

The noble Earl replied that this was “a complex matter” and that:

“The Department commissioned advice from the Independent Medical Expert Group to look at mesothelioma and the awards paid through the WPS”.

The noble Earl promised an announcement and we have now received that.

However, if I may say so, there were also written into this and other Questions tabled at the time questions about the levels of research and indeed the data collection by the Government. I refer particularly to the comments of Commodore Rhod Palmer, who is a third-generation Royal Navy sailor diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015. Incidentally, he is one of those who would have been excluded from the new compensation scheme—the anomaly within the anomaly. He said:

“No amount of money will ever compensate sufferers and their families for a preventable death. However, it is a real breakthrough that the Government will treat all current and future sufferers of mesothelioma exposed to asbestos during their Service under comparable terms as civilians. This payment allows patients with mesothelioma to make arrangements to maximise their quality of life during this terminal illness and to support the family that they leave behind”.

He went on to say:

“Looking to the future, I strongly encourage further funding of research into advancing the treatment of this devastating condition”.

The noble Earl will recall that when he was at the Department of Health I moved an amendment to the Mesothelioma Act to provide financial support from the levy on the insurance industry, which was defeated by a handful of votes. At the time four insurance companies were voluntarily supporting research and the noble Earl believed that many of the other 120 insurance companies covered by the levy would voluntarily join the other four in supporting research into this killer disease. Sadly, I have to inform the noble Earl and the Committee that the opposite has happened, with only two companies now voluntarily supporting research. In supporting this amendment and welcoming this week’s announcement, I ask the noble Earl to study the correspondence that I have sent him today, which includes a letter sent on 18 February to Mr George Osborne, the Chancellor, by Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE of Imperial College, urging him to release LIBOR funds—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord West—to help fund a national mesothelioma research centre, which Imperial wishes to create with the National Heart and Lung Institute, the Royal Brompton Hospital, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital. Incidentally, in that letter Sir Anthony says that the current rate of death is around 3,000 a year. He says:

“There is an urgent need to find curative treatment for this awful disease”.

He says that modern genetics hold great promise but that,

“sadly, to date, mesothelioma has not been the focus to achieve this at any research centre in the UK, or, as far as I am aware, at any centre worldwide”.

The Committee will recall the decision of the Chancellor to transfer some £35 million from the fines levied on the banks for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR interest rate. That money was transferred to the MoD for use in supporting the Armed Forces community. The proposal from Imperial College would be an imaginative use of some of those funds to help to find cures for a disease which has claimed too many lives among members of our Armed Forces. Following our debate today, therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Earl would write to me with a considered response to Sir Anthony’s initiative.

I shall conclude with a word about data collection within the Armed Forces. In February 2014, I asked the Government,

“how many of the annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma involve former members of the armed forces; what data are kept on the cause of death of former servicemen; and what research they plan to commission into the incidence of mesothelioma amongst former servicemen”.

The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, replied:

“Data on the number of annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma does not identify those who were former members of the Armed Forces … The MOD has no plans to commission research into the incidence of mesothelioma amongst former Service Personnel”.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. WA 125-6.]

It is the duty of the department to do that, and it should have such plans. I encourage the noble Earl to revisit this issue. This should not be a case of don’t ask, don’t say. This is about people’s lives and our duty of care towards them. Anecdotes and speculative figures are no substitute for hard-edged data and empirical research, and today I again ask that data collection be instigated.

The noble Lord pursued this argument in June last year when he asked Her Majesty’s Government:

“What data is collected about the incidence of mesothelioma among members of the armed forces; what studies of this issue have been conducted; what estimates they have made of the future incidence of mesothelioma among service men and women and of connected fatalities”.

Those questions still have to be answered, and I hope today’s debate will help us to attend to that. In reply the Minister said:

“The MOD has not conducted studies or research about mesothelioma”.

Surely it is high time it did.

The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine produced an estimate in 2009 that about 2,500 Royal Navy veterans will die from mesothelioma between 2013 and 2047. Surely, we should be commissioning research across the services to establish what the likely incidence will be and, more importantly, what we can do to avert this suffering and these deaths. Surely we should be supporting the work of our scientific community and offering hope to those who have been diagnosed with this horrible disease.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I support the amendments and welcome the statement from the Minister. It was sobering when the noble Lord, Lord West, said at an earlier stage that he and others played snowballs with this material in vessels. Sadly, anybody who comes from an industrial city such as mine with shipyards and other related businesses knows that that was common practice. Dust and fibres were brought into homes on clothing, and that transferred the disease to families, which is why in 2001, when I was Enterprise Minister, I set aside £180 million to cover what we considered to be the compensation required for people who had previously worked for shipyards, which were a nationalised business at the time, to cover deaths to 2050. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has done enormous work on this issue over recent years, says the same thing—that that is the sort of timescale.

What is not mentioned is that while some people think this disease is literally dying out, it may be in this country, but it is not dying out in the world. I am sure we have all seen the horrifying photographs of women in the Indian subcontinent surrounded by mountains of this material which is coming off ships that are being scrapped on beaches in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. They are being dismantled, and these women are sorting this stuff out. It is horrifying to think of the downstream consequences that will produce. Therefore, anybody who thinks this matter is going to be settled in a few years is wrong.

In the amendments in my name in this group I want to draw attention and attempt to raise awareness through publicity among former members of the armed services who may be at risk or who may be susceptible to this disease. It is important that ex-service personnel and their families are made aware of the changes that are now taking place. I was also hoping for a monitoring process to ensure that the comprehensive and prompt detection of cases is also part of it. If people have been exposed, while it may not be currently curable the management of the disease can be handled. I had two neighbours who got this disease; it was a terrible death that they suffered. One of those individuals spent just one year of his entire career in the shipyard, where he, from time to time, went through an area where the electrical materials were being covered in asbestos. One exposure to one fibre, if you are susceptible, can be enough. That was 40 years earlier. It does not discriminate between a person’s normal health, class or physical condition. It is just one of those things: some people are susceptible and others are not. It does not matter whether you are exposed to it for one day or for 20 years. If you are susceptible, you are susceptible.