Child Houses for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I first take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for his service in the Ministry of Justice, both in opposition and in government, and his service both to government and to our party. I also thank him for being an office buddy for the past 13 months. There are four of us in a very small office, so it is great fun.

My noble friend makes an extremely important point: that we ensure that the victims of child sexual abuse are not retraumatised by having to keep on reliving their experience every time they come in front of a particular agency. That is central to ensuring we have better support for victims of sexual abuse. I will certainly examine the points that he has made and discuss them with him still further. I wish him well on the Back Benches, holding the Government to account.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Support for victims of child sexual abuse is of course absolutely vital, but it is equally important that we tackle the issues at their root cause. What actions are the Government taking in regard to prevention of child sexual abuse?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there is a violence against women and girls strategy that is being brought forward, and the prevention of child sexual abuse will be a considerable part of that strategy. The Home Office has accepted all the IICSA recommendations. I responded on a Statement in this House on Thursday of last week, on the work that is being done on grooming gangs. We are trying to ensure that we examine the lessons produced for us, not just by Alexis Jay in the IICSA report but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. There is an ambitious government programme not just to put resources into that but to try to learn those lessons and better co-ordinate how we respond and prevent. That includes training for police and social workers and the duty to report that is in the Crime and Policing Bill that is coming up shortly. There is a range of measures. Again, I welcome the noble Lord’s support for those measures, and his suggestions as the Crime and Policing Bill goes through this House. It is an important issue; it should not divide this House. It is one where we have an ambitious programme to help prevent future child abuse and to support victims who exist already.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there are particular statutory provisions on additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals, and it is those that I understand the noble Baroness is seeking to amplify.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I too offer best wishes, from these Benches, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for a speedy recovery.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments but, like several other speakers before me, it is our party’s position that the legislation already strikes a careful and considered balance between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the need to protect the rights of their partners and children under Article 8. Section 117C of the 2002 Act is clear: in the case of those sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, deportation is the default position unless one of two well-defined exceptions apply. Exception 2, to which Amendment 136 relates, already provides that where there is a genuine and subsisting relationship with the qualifying partner or qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on that partner or child would be “unduly harsh”, deportation should not proceed. So the amendment before us appears to restate protections that are already embedded in the legislation, and the courts already have the discretion—indeed, a duty—to interpret and apply that exception.

We have to be mindful of clarity in the law and not introduce duplicating or potentially confusing provisions. In short, with the greatest respect, the amendments would not meaningfully add to the safeguards already in place, and for that reason we cannot support them.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for moving the amendment. I hope she will pass on the best wishes of His Majesty’s Government and myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding her absence from this House. We look forward to undoubtedly seeing her back for day 6 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on a date to be determined in October.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 187 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of the family in exercising immigration functions. It is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I share the view expressed by both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the amendment is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

138: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Automatic deportation: Appeals(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who has been given a deportation order in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) P may not appeal against the deportation order but may only appeal against their conviction in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (3) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).(4) In section 32, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”.(5) In section 34(2) omit “or sentence”.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 138 and 139 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Together, they go to the heart of what it means to have a fair, firm and trusted asylum and immigration system that both commands the confidence of the British people and respects their good will.

We should start from first principles. The people of this country are generous, compassionate and welcoming. That generosity has been demonstrated towards those migrating to the UK over the centuries and has especially been seen more recently in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, through which ordinary families across the UK opened their doors, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which have offered refuge to those who stood by our Armed Forces. This reflects a profound national instinct to offer sanctuary to those in genuine need fleeing persecution and violence, and to do so with humanity and dignity.

However, that good will is not unlimited, nor should it be exploited. When we ask the British people to assent to immigration policy, we are not legislating in the abstract. We are in effect asking our fellow citizens to share their homes and their services with those arriving on our shores. That is a profound act of trust, and it is our duty in this place to protect that trust. That is why I suggest that these amendments matter: they draw a clear and important distinction between those who come here in need of our support and behave with gratitude and decency, and those who come here and break our criminal law and expect to remain regardless.

I turn to the detail of the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies. Amendment 139 would provide that any person who was not a British citizen and was convicted of a crime while in the UK would be automatically deported. Furthermore, where a non-British citizen over the age of 17 was convicted of an offence, the court would have to order deportation when sentencing. That would bring absolute clarity: if you break the law, you forfeit the right to remain. It would also ensure that those who committed immigration offences, such as entering or remaining unlawfully, were dealt with firmly and consistently.

Amendment 138 deals specifically with automatic deportation orders. These were introduced to the immigration system by the previous Labour Government in the UK Borders Act 2007. They state that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in cases of conviction where 12 months’ imprisonment is applied and an offence is specified. My amendment seeks to prevent the possibility of constant and lengthy appeals by removing the ability of foreign offenders to frustrate an automatic deportation order through a lengthy appeal mechanism. It provides that, if a deportation order is made, it is final and can be neither appealed nor overturned by a higher court. That would not, of course, affect the right to appeal the criminal conviction, which would remain, but the automatic deportation order could not be overturned.

We cannot justify to the British people a system in which convicted criminals linger here for years during protracted appeal proceedings. These amendments are not directed against those who genuinely need our protection—those fleeing war, persecution and danger—but against those who exploit our generosity, take advantage of our systems and commit crimes against the very society that has given them shelter.

Finally, I lend a word of support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have no wish to steal his thunder, so will be as brief as I can. I support the amendment, which would ensure that deportation orders follow swiftly within seven days of release and cannot be endlessly delayed or appealed. That clarity is essential both for the integrity of the system and for the public’s trust in it.

These amendments draw a firm line, restore public trust and reaffirm the principle that compassion must be matched by responsibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 203A in my name and to contribute to the wider deliberations of the Committee. It almost feels as if this Bill is from a different era. The speed of change of government policy on immigration following the publication of the immigration White Paper and various other political developments has left us somewhat flat-footed.

Foreign national offenders remain an endemic issue, which the previous Government, in all fairness, failed to tackle as effectively as they could have. It is apposite that just today the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 is being considered by the Grand Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has opined on that statutory instrument in its 31st report. I will not bore the Committee with the details.

Foreign national offenders cost roughly £54,000 each. They cost £500 million a year and, as of 25 June, there were 10,772 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. They represent 12.5% of the prison population. Disproportionate groups are Albanians, Poles, Romanians, Jamaicans and Irish citizens.

I welcome the Government’s new focus on this area. It is fair to say that they have made some progress. Up to August 2025, they had removed around 5,000 of these individuals. Nevertheless, the number of foreign national offenders is still extremely high compared with just six years ago. Since 2019, there has been a 16.8% rise in foreign national offenders in the prison estate. It was not always the case that we were struggling to remove them. In 2016, the previous Government removed 6,437. In 2017 the figure was 6,292 and in 2018 it was 5,500. Believe it or not, over 12,000 were removed in 2012. The previous Government secured a prisoner transfer agreement with Albania in May 2023.

Regarding some of the legal impediments to the removal of foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences, the German Government—no doubt we will come back to this issue in future—derogated from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically to prevent vexatious and spurious claims against deportation by, in particular, persistent Albanian career criminals. I wonder why the UK Government have not sought to pursue a similar policy, but I am obviously glad that they are looking at it in their review of Article 8. Every time the Minister speaks on this, he sounds a bit more robust in his interpretation, which I am hopeful about.

One-third of foreign national offenders are citizens of the European Union. They should be removed on the basis of public policy, public health and public safety and security, available under the free movement regulations and, post Brexit, Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

I am interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the Chamber, as I do not know what the statutory basis for this is, but why do we not remove the many hundreds of Irish prisoners in our estate? It seems to be a “convention” that we do not. As she would no doubt agree, surely we can ask the Irish to take back their own prisoners as a quid pro quo for the defence support we consistently give to them. The previous Government paid £25 million to the Government of Jamaica to construct a prison in Kingston as part of a quid pro quo for the removal of several thousand Jamaican prisoners in our estate. It seems that we have not expedited that positive outcome. Can the Minister update us on any new prisoner transfer agreement that is likely to come to fruition on top of the one signed in October 2023 with the Philippines? I know that there is ongoing work with the Government of Italy in this respect as well. Maybe he can say how many prisoners claim asylum, or are likely to claim asylum, at the point that they are due to be released or deported.

The reason why we need this amendment and a statutory duty as an imperative in law is that Ministers are bedevilled not just by judicial activism and the misuse of Article 8 of the ECHR by some judges in the Upper Tribunal, as consistently exposed by the Daily Telegraph, but by a fundamental and chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have 12,000 criminals mooted for deportation at large in our communities, an increase of 192% since 2012. Yet we have the legal powers to act decisively under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. I applaud the Government for their early removal scheme changes and efforts to secure new prisoner transfer agreements. I think we all agree with that, but we need better and more up-to-date data and communications between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need better reporting performance at the foreign national offenders returns command and a review of case working. We need to stop the use of manually accessed spreadsheets, tackle poor IT provision and improve case ownership, case management, accountability and timelines.

--- Later in debate ---

I have tried to answer the points that have been made by noble Lords. I suspect that we will return to some of these issues on Report. We certainly will if the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, re-table their amendments. In the meantime, I would welcome them withdrawing or not moving their amendments, and them considering what has been said.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whom I congratulate on showing his survival instincts over the weekend. I do not shy away from the absolute nature of these amendments. Having listened carefully to what has been said, I intended to withdraw or not move them, but I make just one point, which was also made by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The rationale of these amendments lies in building a fair, trusted and enduring immigration system that requires us to carry the British people with us. Protecting that good will must be a matter of utmost importance. The danger is that the good will that currently exists is dissipating very quickly. Foreign national offenders are at the epicentre of that and public confidence in our system can never be taken for granted.

However, in the light of what has been said, and reflecting on everything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 138 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord is correct. If the Home Office recognises it has made a mistake, then it should apply the protections which are provided by the withdrawal agreement, which is precisely the major point that is being made in this set of amendments. Amendment 144 would ensure that all actions related to EUSS status are subject to clear procedural safeguards, as laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

Taken together, these amendments reinforce fairness and legal certainty for EUSS beneficiaries, ensuring that administrative decisions respect individual rights and that the procedural safeguards are consistently applied.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I have very little to add except that I await the explanation from the Minister with great interest. The amendments in this group and Clause 42 itself concern the rights of those granted settled status in the UK under the EU settlement scheme after the UK left the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has ably explained, there are a number of avenues for an individual to apply for this scheme. As I understand it, the impact of Clause 42 is to standardise the rights applicable to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who are granted leave to remain under the settlement scheme so that they can rely on them under UK law. Subsection (2) of the clause defines precisely who this applies to, and Amendment 142 seeks to amend that. I am not quite certain of the intent behind that, because the language is very similar to the original text, so I think it is essential for the Minister to clarify what Clause 42 lacks that makes these amendments necessary.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving the amendments on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. He will know that we had some meetings in relation to this, and I have tried to engage on behalf of the Home Office as the answering Minister here, but, as he realises, the Minister who has been dealing directly with this issue was until recently one Minister in the Commons and is now another Minister in the Commons. But we will return to that in due course.

First, I want to set out the purpose of Clause 42. As the noble Lord said, Clause 42 is designed to provide legal clarity for those EU citizens and their family members with EU settled status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement that it is the source of their rights in the UK. This has been achieved very simply by confirming in UK law under Clause 42 that any EU citizen or their family member with EU settled status will be treated as being a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. Where they do not already do so, they will have directly effective rights under the withdrawal agreement as brought into domestic law by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.

Because the EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires, there are, as the noble Lord has mentioned, two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: there is the “true cohort” who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement because, for example, they were economically active or self-sufficient in the UK as per EU free movement law at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020; and there is the “extra cohort” who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Although the UK has sought, through both the previous Government and this Government, to treat both cohorts the same, certain court judgments since the end of the transition period, as the noble Lord mentioned, mean that some differences in treatment have emerged. The whole purpose of Clause 42 is to address that anomaly.

Amendment 142 in the noble Lord’s name permits all those granted EUSS status to benefit from the clause where that status has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked. This would mean, for example, that Clause 42 would benefit a person who was granted EUSS status but has since committed a serious criminal offence, for example, and has been deported from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that would not be an appropriate outcome, but it would be the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled.

In respect of those with pre-settled status under the EUSS who obtain another form of immigration leave, I can confirm that this amendment is not needed because the clause as drafted covers that point. We have listened carefully to representations with stakeholders on these issues and we have decided that, where a person with pre-settled status obtains other leave, such as the domestic abuse route, they will retain their pre-settled status. That will enable them easily to show that they still have withdrawal agreement rights, should they need to do so.

The noble Lords spoke to Amendments 143 and 145 together, and I will deal with them together, if I may. These are concerned with those with EUSS status based on certain derivative rights under EU law. Those individuals include people who are the primary carer of a self-sufficient EU citizen child or with a child in education in the UK where the EU citizen parent has been a worker here and their primary carer. Both these categories are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and are included in the EUSS on a basis which reflects the relevant EU law requirements. Complex though this is, a person granted EUSS status on that basis will be in the “true cohort” and will have the withdrawal agreement rights in the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

That is so regardless of whether the caseworker applied evidential flexibility in granting EUSS status. Such flexibility—for example, not requiring missing evidence to be provided and therefore minimising administrative burdens on the applicant—can be applied only where the caseworker is already satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant requirements of the EUSS rules are met.

Finally, Amendment 144 would remove subsection (2)(c) from Clause 42. This would mean that we were granting withdrawal agreement rights to people in the UK who do not qualify for EUSS status, which would not be right. Subsection (2)(c) protects the integrity of the EUSS and of Clause 42. It ensures that, to benefit from Clause 42 and therefore have withdrawal agreement rights, the person was correctly granted EUSS status. This amendment is not needed to ensure that the status of a person in the “true cohort”, or by virtue of this clause in the “extra cohort”, can be removed only by applying the procedural safeguards contained in the withdrawal agreement.

The noble Lord mentioned the issue of a decision to cancel, curtail or revoke EUSS status. It carries a right of appeal under Regulation 3 or 4 of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and nothing in Clause 42 changes that. I hope that will give him the reassurance that he seeks. A person whose EUSS status has manifestly been granted in error will not be in the true or extra cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.

Safeguards are still in place in such cases. Where the Home Office comes across the case of EUSS status granted in error, the individual is contacted and provided with a reasonable opportunity to show that their grant of EUSS status was correct. If they cannot do so and they have pre-settled status, our current approach is to allow them to remain in the UK for the remaining period of their leave. They are also informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal. Safeguards that I hope the noble Lord will find adequate are therefore in place in both these cases.

We have had a discussion and I hope the noble Lord can look at what I have said. Again, this is always a complex area. I have read deliberately from my brief so that the issue is, I hope, clarified by what I have said, and he can read Hansard in the morning and look at what I have said to date. The purpose of Clause 42 is to clarify the very points that the noble Lord has concerns over, and that is why I hope he will withdraw this amendment today. If he remains unhappy then obviously he has the opportunity to return to this issue on Report.

The noble Lord asked about data. I answer in this House for the department, but I often answer for other ministerial colleagues who are looking at these issues in detail. I will revisit the questions that the noble Lord put to me on data sharing, and I will make sure that, well before Report, I get him a fuller response to clarify the issues that he has raised, because I am unable to give him a definitive answer on that today. While I might wish to do so, it is best if I examine that in the cold light of day and drop him a note accordingly. With that, I hope he will not press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for reminding us that our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been injured. We wish him a speedy recovery. He plays such an important part in our debates.

When I have talked to people claiming asylum in this country, they have had two main wishes: either they want to complete their education, which has been damaged through difficult journeys here and dangers in the countries they have fled from, or they want to work. They want to work because it is the right thing to do; they want to contribute to our society. There is this idea that they want to benefit from benefits but, frankly, I have never heard that. I am quite convinced that when they say they want to work and contribute to this country, they are telling the truth.

Then there is the argument about pull factors. I have heard that argument used about every single group of people we might be talking about. When I was discussing child refugees many years ago, I was told that if those children come, others will follow. It is the argument that Governments have used since the beginning of time, and I am just not convinced by it. There are much stronger arguments the other way.

The point about other EU countries is important. If our labour market is such that people want to come here, why is it that other EU countries which allow people to work do not appear to have a pull factor? I think we should get in line with other countries instead of being different.

The noble Lord talked about people being willing to work for lower wages. Yes, but I think that is regrettable. I believe and have argued before that it is up to the trade unions as much as anybody else to ensure that people do not work below the proper wage level for the industry they are in. It is difficult. I know that today may not be the best day to argue the case for trade unions, but I believe that it is important that people do not undercut wages. It should be done by strength and unity at the workplace.

Finally, I am interested in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about ID cards. It is becoming higher up on the agenda and we shall all have to consider it very hard indeed. I agree with all the amendments, apart from Amendment 154A. The denial of the right to work has been so fundamental for many years; for heaven’s sake, let us deal with it sensibly.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord German, in sending good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I wish them both a speedy recovery. They have played a very full part in debates on this Bill and, although they are not often on the same page as the Opposition, I have always welcomed their incisive arguments.

The amendments in this group are primarily concerned with granting asylum seekers the right to work, after various timeframes have elapsed, much more quickly than is currently permitted. The position of those of us on these Benches is clear and already well known. It has not changed and therefore I will not detain the House for too long, only to say that we believe that the current system, which allows those who have been waiting for a year or longer for a decision to apply for permission to work, is sufficient.

We are also clear that, if we were to allow a looser approach to those in the asylum process being allowed to work, it would create a clear incentive for people to come to the UK illegally. That is self-evident and will encourage even more people to endanger their lives and the lives of others in crossing the channel and the money will ultimately just flow back into the pockets of the people smugglers. It will encourage people to come and often to work illegally.

I note that the previous Home Secretary, who recently moved on, said that:

“Illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime”.


Therefore, for those reasons, despite a fascinating and wide-ranging debate—I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, talk about his experience—I am afraid that these Benches will not support those amendments that seek to permit this sort of working.

I move on to the final amendments in this group, which relate to the fishing industry, brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. They raise some very interesting questions and I welcome them to that extent. As someone who represented the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for eight years in the Scottish Parliament, I am very alive to the issues in the workplace in the fishing industry, particularly among people from abroad working in very difficult conditions on boats for periods of time. We must do everything possible to stamp out exploitation in the workplace and in sectors such as fishing where vulnerable people can so easily be taken advantage of.

No one in this Chamber would want to see labour abuse tolerated. Where there is criminality, it must be cracked down on swiftly and decisively. I have one caveat about these amendments. This worthy objective cannot come at the expense of somehow opening up a sort of back-door route, if I can put it like that, for those who come to this country illegally to remain here. That would risk undermining confidence in the system.

We need a balanced approach—one that ensures workers are protected from abuse but preserves the integrity of our border and Immigration Rules. To do that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks, we have to understand the true scale of the problem and what practical steps can be taken to address it. These amendments are directed towards discovering and learning more about this. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide some clarity on how the Government will tackle this labour exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 159, 160 and 161 in my name before speaking in support of Amendment 158 tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My amendments here are more technical in nature and simply seek to standardise the language used in Clause 48 with the language used in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as has already been mentioned, provides for the application and interpretation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Specifically, it provides a definition in UK law of what is to be considered a particularly serious crime. This permits the refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers who commit such particularly serious crimes and therefore constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.

Section 72 of the 2002 Act was amended by Section 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The 2022 Act substituted the words “shall be presumed to have been” for “is” in subsections (2), (3) and (4). Consequently, rather than saying:

“A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,


which was the original language used, those subsections in the 2002 Act now read:

“A person is convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”.


That was introduced to end ambiguity regarding which presumption in Section 72 is rebuttable in court. The changes in the 2022 Act therefore alter the language such that the rebuttable presumption applies only in one instance.

However, in Clause 48 of this Bill, new subsections state that:

“A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,


thereby using the old phrasing of the originally enacted 2002 Act rather than the phrasing currently in force. If this clause were to pass as it is, the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act would not be uniform and would reintroduce the ambiguity regarding the rebuttable presumptions that was removed by the 2022 Act.

I apologise for that lengthy exposition of the technical context of the amendments, but I simply seek clarification from the Government and the Minister on why this is the case. Have the Government chosen to reintroduce another rebuttable presumption in Clause 48? Given that the Government have not stated their intent to reverse the changes made by the 2022 Act to Section 72, why is there mismatching phrasing? I do not think those changes were controversial at the time; I have checked Hansard and not a single Member of your Lordships’ House challenged those changes in the Bill in Committee or on Report. So I simply seek to understand whether the Government support the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as amended by the 2022 Act, and whether there was an intention to reintroduce that ambiguity.

Amendment 158, from my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, has been amply covered. My noble friend Lord Murray made a compelling argument for seeking to include immigration offences in the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of Article 33(2) of the convention. As things stand, the definition of a particularly serious crime includes any offence for which a person has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 12 months. As my noble friend has just said, his amendment would expand that definition further to encompass immigration offences.

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a short but legally quite forensic debate. It was probably almost too forensic for gone 10 pm on a Monday night. I shall do my best to address their concerns.

I shall start by talking a bit about Clause 48 and then move on to the amendments. The Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out under the Refugee Convention. As noble Lords will be aware, a key principle of the Refugee Convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk they would be subject to persecution. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, clearly and ably set this out.

The convention recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows refugees to be refouled where they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. Clause 48 goes further than the previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence included in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is because this Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities. We are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls within a decade. Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows the individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community.

Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the particularly serious rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the Refugee Convention with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly, Amendment 160, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offences committed outside the United Kingdom, where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the United Kingdom. Their Amendments 161A to 161E seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a particularly serious crime in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result.

There is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the Refugee Convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other states parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good faith interpretation requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and maintaining respect for the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole.

The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. At the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed that such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing these heinous acts, they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. This measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach.

In speaking to his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke at length and in quite technical detail about the alignment of the language of the 2002 Act. Rather than trying to go into detail now, I will undertake to write to the noble Lord about the issues of language alignment that he raised, so that we can get a properly considered and more legally watertight response than I can give at this hour.

Amendment 158 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to expand the definition of a “particularly serious crime” to immigration offences. We consider this amendment to be incompatible with the refugee convention. We understand the seriousness of individuals seeking to arrive in the UK through dangerous and unsafe means, which is why we are taking robust action to prevent it. That is what this Bill is all about. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised Article 2 of the refugee convention. Our view is that the Bill is utterly consistent with the principle that those coming here have responsibilities to obey the host nation’s laws. That is something that we feel runs through the Bill.

In terms of the actions that we are taking, Border Security Command is strengthening global partnerships to enhance our efforts to investigate, arrest and prosecute these criminals. We recruited an extra 100 specialist NCA investigators and intelligence officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol, to drive closer working with international law enforcement partners to target smuggling gangs. This Bill will give the NCA new powers to tackle organised immigration crime and protect the UK’s border. As stated previously, it is open to the UK to interpret the convention in good faith, and it is considered that immigration offences that do not carry a custodial sentence of more than 12 months cannot in good faith be interpreted as a particularly serious crime. Given that explanation and the undertaking to write to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the technical point of language alignment, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.

This amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.

When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.

Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent White Paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.

Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.

BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.

Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.

This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the Front Bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.

There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.

More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.

Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.

This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.

I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.

This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.

In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

The Government remain unwavering in their commitment to ensuring that this inquiry is robust, transparent and capable of delivering truth, accountability and meaningful change. As we have said from the outset, we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, there is never a more solemn occasion in this Chamber, in my mind, than when we discuss the issue of child grooming gangs. Noble Lords are all aware of the utterly horrendous nature of the abuse that was—and still is—being perpetrated. For that reason, as ever, these Benches are immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for all the work she has done in this area, although we regret the delays in publishing the Casey review earlier this year.

I start by welcoming the action that the Government have taken so far. We are pleased that they have continued the grooming gangs taskforce, which in its first year of operation arrested over 550 people. The establishment of Operation Beaconport is also a welcome move. I am sure that we all hope that this joined-up approach will deliver real results and give victims the justice they deserve.

As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said on 18 June, we on these Benches are pleased that the Government have announced that they would finally launch a full, statutory national inquiry into these vile grooming gangs. There were many calls, including in this Chamber, for such an inquiry, and it was highly unfortunate that it took the Government so long to agree to this, but they have finally come to their senses. However, we have heard in this Statement that not quite as much progress has been made as one would have hoped. On 18 June, the Minister when asked about timelines said

“we will be bringing that forward at an early opportunity; we have to appoint a chair and set terms of reference”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2087.]

The inquiry was announced over two months ago now, yet the Minister for Safeguarding in this Statement has confirmed that they have not yet appointed a chair nor agreed the terms of reference. We appreciate that the Home Office is in the final stages of the appointment process, but might the Minister be able to give us a date? Surely the department knows when it will announce this appointment.

Given the amount of time that has transpired between when many of these crimes were committed and now, it is absolutely vital that the next stages are completed at pace. Not only should the chair be appointed imminently, but the terms of reference should also be speedily nailed down and the start date for the inquiry announced as soon as possible after that.

While the inquiry is being established, we must ensure that the police and Home Office continue to do everything in their power to investigate historical cases, identify current perpetrators and prosecute anyone involved. I stress to the Minister how important it is that justice does not wait for the results of the inquiry. We know that such an inquiry will probably take between two to three years. Obviously, there is much ground to cover, and it must be thorough and rigorous, but in the meantime, there are people who simply cannot wait.

In the light of this, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will publish their violence against women and girls strategy? How will the Government ensure that this strategy is not merely warm words but contains actionable plans that can be delivered upon, and will it include tough measures relating to the victims of the grooming gang scandal? We all owe it to those survivors to end their nightmare swiftly.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the update as promised to Parliament earlier in the year—it is refreshing and a sign of how seriously this Government are taking group-based child sexual exploitation. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her excellent work.

I start by thanking the whistleblowers and victims, who are still speaking up about this. The speed and success of the actions forecast in this Statement will be judged to have satisfied their demands for justice, and should change policing forever, so that we never end up in this position again.

The national inquiry and national police operation must not just be survivor-centred but must always check back with survivors about process. On many, many occasions, your Lordships’ House has highlighted other victims of appalling circumstances, inquiries and compensation schemes, where the Government of the day paid the right lip service but the reality has left those survivors getting caught up in the bureaucracy that definitely is not survivor-centred. I think particularly of the Hillsborough tragedy, the Manchester bombings and the Windrush scandal, as well as the scandals of infected blood, the Grenfell Tower fire and the Horizon postmasters.

The update on the national police operation is encouraging, but there seems to be one glaring hole: all the detail is about training senior and specialist staff. There is no mention of the front-line staff, including control or police officers on the beat. Their lack of training in years gone by meant that the police missed the obvious first signs and ignored whistleblowers. This has also been a problem in other areas, such as in recognising stalking and domestic abuse. Can the Minister say what is planned for those on the front line, because, without their involvement, cases may not even make it to the high level specialist units?

The update on the Tackling Organised Exploitation programme—TOEX—is also helpful, including the details of the rollout. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches understand that things cannot change overnight, but can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when every police force will be TOEX trained and funded?

I will briefly make two other points. It is good to see the commitment to improving ethnicity data. The Statement says that this will be used for all cases with child sexual exploitation suspects, but is that not too late as well? Data needs to be consistently collected across the board. We therefore welcome the inquiry considering the intersection with ethnicity, race and culture, as well as safeguarding.

Finally, while it is right that the focus of this Statement is on the horrific gang-based child sexual abuse, as the Minister knows, the vast majority of child sexual abuse is hidden from view. NSPCC data estimates that one in 20 children face child sexual abuse, accounting for probably close to 90% of child sexual abuse across the board. The average age of a victim finally finding the courage to volunteer information about what happened to them is, shockingly, about 20 years after the event. What will the Government do to ensure that all adults—parents, teachers and especially doctors—are able to identify the signs early on and report it, so that this serious scourge can be reduced too?

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. For individuals who have been granted asylum, under the pilot we have extended the period from 28 days to 56 days to ensure that transition takes place. We are now tweaking that for certain categories of individual applicants back to 28 days. In a sense, the noble Lord hits a very important point: the asylum claim has been approved, and the period—be it 28 or 56 days—is there for that transition. At the end of that period, the Government have fulfilled their responsibilities in the asylum claim approval and the hand-on period. Therefore, we need to ensure that individuals then begin their new life under their own steam.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, throughout the summer we all witnessed a number of protests relating to asylum accommodation, suggesting that social cohesion in certain areas is under severe pressure. Does the Minister recognise the challenges faced by local authorities and local residents’ frustration, given that the number of asylum seekers temporarily housed in hotels has increased by 8% since the end of June 2024?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always find it fascinating that the Opposition continue to raise these questions with the Government, because if I wind the clock back to 2016, there were no hotels in use for asylum accommodation. Asylum claims rose dramatically under the previous Government and only a couple of years ago asylum hotels reached a peak of over 400, which is starting to fall now. We inherited that massive number and are trying to deal with that backlog of asylum claims, and the asylum issue as a whole, in a proper and effective way.

For me, community cohesion means the best way to deal with that is to speed up asylum claims, to ensure we close those hotels as a matter of some urgency and to determine who has the right to asylum in this country. We then give them a 56 or 28-day period of settlement and remove those individuals who have no right to reside in this country, their asylum claim having failed. With due respect to the noble Lord, the previous Government failed miserably on all those things. We are trying to do them.

People have a right to protest. But people also have a right to understand why and how we are dealing with this issue and what we are doing to resolve it to maintain community cohesion so that people welcome those who are fleeing persecution, war, starvation and the other forms of economic misery driving them to seek asylum in Europe and this country.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate that has departed in many ways from the list in the group that we are debating. But it has been a worthwhile and fascinating debate and, as my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said, the context for it has to be what he termed the growing sense of injustice on the part of many people in this country about the direction of our immigration system. That should be borne in mind by us all as we debate not just this group but the Bill in general.

Returning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, which attempts to remove Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act from the statute book, I suggest that the principle of that section is straightforward and hard to disagree with. That principle is: if an individual is a national of a country where there is no general risk of persecution, where human rights are respected and where there is access to justice and democratic accountability, is it not right that their claim be considered inadmissible unless there are exceptional grounds? Is it not right that, instead, we focus our finite resources and time on those fleeing regimes where oppression, conflict and state violence are real and present dangers?

The practical benefits of Section 59 are significant. It reduces administrative and clerical delay, streamlines caseworking, ensures that officials can focus on the most serious and urgent claims, and establishes a clear statutory list of safe states, with the ability to amend that list through accountable parliamentary procedure. That list is not set in stone; it can change, and it creates both clarity and flexibility.

By failing to adopt this section, we risk achieving the opposite. We risk a system clogged with vexatious or unfounded claims by legal gamesmanship—I say that as a lawyer—and by delay, which comes at a cost not only to the taxpayer but, more importantly, to those who truly do need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking, whom we have a moral duty to protect. I suggest to the Committee that Section 59 helps to ensure that that duty is fulfilled, not diluted, and that it prioritises principle, preserves the fairness of the system and promotes justice. For all those reasons, and despite my long-standing respect for the noble Lord, I am unable to support his amendment.

Amendment 192, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, does not target genuine refugees or close the door to those in real and urgent need who use safe and legal routes to come to the UK. It ensures that the law applies equally to all and that those who enter this country legally or who make claims from safe third countries are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those who enter clandestinely or via criminal routes. We cannot have a two-tier legal system: one for citizens and legal migrants and another for those who deliberately breach our laws and then ask for protection. We need to remember that this is not just damaging for us and our legal system; it is damaging and dangerous for the migrants themselves. It hands power to the criminal or gangs; it encourages risky and dangerous unlawful crossings; and it ensures that vulnerable people are drawn into a system that is harder, not easier, to navigate.

That ties in with Amendment 203J, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth and spoken to by him with his customary lucidity and compelling arguments. I note that it was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, at least tentatively, and he prayed in aid Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in the court case that he mentioned—two of Scotland’s most eminent jurists of the last 25 years. My noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Jackson of Peterborough and many others made excellent points about that amendment, which has a simple and sensible underlying premise: genuine asylum seekers should claim asylum when they get to a safe country. Travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK is an abuse of that system, and I therefore support that amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

What is the noble Lord’s answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we have no business interpreting the refugee convention on a domestic level and that it is a matter for the wide world that considers the convention?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. My answer is that it is our business and that we can devise an asylum and immigration system for this country—and that entitles us to make the points that not only my noble friend Lord Murray but the Conservative Party Front Bench have made throughout the Bill: that this is about achieving a system that deters illegal migration and yet allows those who are in real need to use safe and legal routes to come to the UK.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Taking the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I entirely understand the situation of somebody who has come over illegally and has no good reason to stay here, but, if that person comes from an unsafe country, where would you send him or her?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for making that point. I think my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth’s argument is that genuine asylum seekers have to claim asylum when they reach a safe country. The amendment is aimed at stopping travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

An Afghan soldier who served alongside our troops, to whom we have a duty, has no safe route to the UK now. Is the noble Lord suggesting that we should not support an asylum application if they arrived illegally—illegal only because the noble Lord’s Government made it so?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am supporting the premise that a genuine asylum seeker should claim asylum when they get to a safe country.

Amendment 193, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies, seeks to incorporate what I believe should be an entirely uncontroversial principle: if someone arrives in this country and needs sanctuary, they should say so, and without delay. This demand is the bare minimum of what a functioning immigration and asylum system should expect. I would argue that this amendment brings clarity and discipline to that expectation. It establishes a one-year window in which claims must be made and it ensures that claims brought beyond that point, without compelling reason, are not entertained.

I want to be very clear: that is a defence of genuine refugees. When our system is flooded with last-minute, opportunistic or tactical claims, it is those with genuine protection needs who suffer. Delays grow longer, the backlogs increase, and the resources stretch thinner. We owe it to those in real danger to ensure that the system works for them and not for those seeking to game it. The amendment is drawn from the new Canadian asylum and immigration rules, which also impose a one-year time limit for claiming asylum. The Home Secretary herself has acknowledged that this is an acute problem. As my noble friend Lord Davies said from this Dispatch Box yesterday, the Government have stated that they want to clamp down on students who come to the UK on a student visa and then claim asylum once they are in the UK, often at the end of their visa. The amendment would prevent that happening, since if a person came to the UK, studied for three years at university and then attempted to make an asylum claim, they would not be able to do so. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

Finally, Amendment 203E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of safe states in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I urge the House to consider very carefully the implications of such a move, not only for the integrity of our asylum system but for our bilateral relations, our immigration enforcement systems and the principle of credible, evidence-based policy. Let us begin with Albania—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sorry, because the noble Lord was obviously about to go through the list. Perhaps he could add France, because I have been wondering about our relationship with France if we were to pursue the route of insisting that any safe country through which an asylum seeker travels should be aware that he pursues asylum.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will continue to go through the list. Let us begin with Albania. The amendment proposes to strike from the list of safe countries a NATO member and a nation with which the United Kingdom has a formal bilateral returns agreement, signed in 2022, that has been a cornerstone of our efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised criminality. It allows for the swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK and ensures that genuine protection claims are still assessed on a case-by-case basis. According to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused. Why? It is because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning failed asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status, and co-operates with a range of international human rights mechanisms—

[Lord German (LD)]

Georgia has been suspended for reasons we just talked about to do with the way it treats people.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I still suggest that it co-operates with a range of human rights mechanisms.

India is the world’s largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner and a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitutional protections for minorities, an independent judiciary and regular multi-party elections.

To suggest that those countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound. Are there challenges in all societies? Yes, of course—that point was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. However, that is not the test, because the test under Section 80AA is whether “in general” the country poses a serious risk, so the statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise. A lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments, but the question that she has to ask herself is a general one: does that country in general pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, and would removal to those countries contravene our human rights obligations? I would suggest quite firmly that the test is not remotely met in the cases of Albania, Georgia or India.

Genuine refugees deserve our protection, and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims from nationals of safe democratic states. That is why we cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

105: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make arrangements for removal(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom if the person meets the following four conditions.(2) The first condition is that—(a) the person requires leave to enter the United Kingdom, but has entered the United Kingdom—(i) without leave to enter, or(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person,(b) the person has entered the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order,(c) the person has entered or arrived in the United Kingdom at a time when they were an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments) and—(i) subsection (5A) of that section (exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person, and(ii) an exception created under, or direction given by virtue of, section 15(4) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (power to create exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person,(d) the person requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, or(e) the person is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an electronic travel authorisation that is valid for that person’s journey to the United Kingdom, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without such an electronic travel authorisation.(3) The second condition is that the person entered or arrived in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) on or after the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The third condition is that, in entering or arriving as mentioned in subsection (2), the person did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) a person is not to be taken to have come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened as mentioned in that subsection if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.(6) The fourth condition is that the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it.(7) In this section—“country” includes territory;“deportation order” means an order under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971;“electronic travel authorisation” means an authorisation in electronic form to travel to the United Kingdom;“entry clearance” has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.(8) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. (9) Section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (person deemed not to enter the United Kingdom before disembarkation, while in controlled area or while under immigration control) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.(10) The only circumstances in which the duty in subsection (1) does not apply to a person who meets the four conditions in this section are where—(a) section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(1) applies to the person,(b) regulations under section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(7) apply to the person,(c) a Minister of the Crown has made a determination under section (Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights)(2) in relation to the person, or(d) section 61 or 62 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (victims of slavery and human trafficking) apply in relation to the person.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to amendments which seek to reinsert certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act that the Government are repealing with this Bill. The intention of these Benches is that the Government justify the repeal of each section of that Act.

Amendment 105 would reintroduce the duty on the Secretary of State to remove anyone from the UK who meets all of the following four conditions: they affected an unlawful, deceptive entry, including without a visa; they entered on or after this Bill becomes law; they did not come directly from a country where they were genuinely fleeing persecution; and they lack lawful immigration status. There are protections under this proposed new clause which recognise the specific needs of those who are unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking or those protected by European court measures. The clause sets out the clear duty of the Secretary of State to remove those who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be candid about why this amendment matters. Control over our borders is not just a political imperative; it is also a moral and democratic one. We all know that our asylum system is under intolerable strain. The public expect us to take action against those who break the rules, jump the queue and undermine the integrity of legal migration pathways. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to create an unambiguous legal duty to remove those who arrive illegally after this Bill comes into force, so that the message is clear that if you enter the UK unlawfully, you will not be allowed to stay.

This summer, as we have already heard, we have seen the strength of feeling that many in communities throughout the UK have towards the illegal migration crisis that this Government are presiding over. The problem is getting worse, and without serious action now it is going to get much worse. Dismantling the legal toolbox on this point seems to us on these Benches to be a poor decision.

Further, Amendment 109 seeks to reintroduce the process element of the Illegal Migration Act for removals. This proposed new clause would make it clear that removals must be made

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

to a person’s country of nationality, a country where they obtained a passport or identity document, a country they departed from to reach the UK, or a country that is willing to accept them. These provisions would apply only when the said country is deemed to be safe.

I suggest that the amendment would do something essential: it would reintroduce the clear legal framework for the removal of individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. It seeks to set a reasonable and practicable duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that removal takes place as soon as possible after arrival. In doing so, it sends out an unambiguous message that our Immigration Rules are not optional, and that entry into the UK without lawful status will carry consequences. We cannot have a situation where people are languishing here indefinitely at taxpayers’ expense.

At the same time, this proposed new clause is far from draconian. It is structured with carefully calibrated safeguards. It distinguishes between those from designated safe countries and those who may not be. It places clear limitations on the countries to which individuals can be removed. Where a protection or human rights claim is made, the amendment would ensure that no one is removed to a country unless it is formally listed and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual falls within a lawful category for removal. In short, the system would balance our obligations with the public expectation that illegal migration will be addressed seriously and systematically, and would provide clarity. It would avoid legal ambiguity, giving operational certainty to the Home Office, and would send a signal to the people-smugglers and traffickers alike that the UK will not be a soft target.

If this Government believe in deterrence, border security and preserving the capacity to protect the most vulnerable, this amendment embodies that balance. It would not slam the door shut but would set lawful parameters. It seeks to make it clear that the UK will not reward those who undermine our rules and ignore safe routes of migration. I beg to move.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I wonder if I could put to the noble Lord the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put, which he did not answer in the previous debate? The amendment would impose a requirement to deport, but to where? Where are they to go?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling Amendments 105 and 109. I apologise to the House: in the confusion over the vote we had on Clause 38 stand part, I inadvertently started to discuss not only Clause 38 stand part but, in the last set of discussions, some of the arguments on Amendments 105 and 109. We drifted into that inadvertently because I thought we had finished debating Clause 38, so I apologise to noble Lords if I repeat some of the arguments here.

I start with the very sensible suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. These are complex and difficult issues. We have an inheritance from 5 July last year when we took office which we have had to deal with. I am not seeking to make political capital out of this. I want to have solutions, and the solutions are to have a fair and effective migration system, to speed it up, to ensure that we deal with international obligations on asylum, to remove those people who have failed the asylum system, to remove foreign national prisoners who have abused our hospitality and the privileges of being in this country, to ensure that we have a thriving economy and to ensure that we meet the skill sets that we need for the United Kingdom to succeed. Where we can bring entrepreneurs and others who can offer skills to this country, we do so. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there are many forces outside this House which seek to divide the United Kingdom to exploit these issues. It is imperative that we find concrete solutions.

One of the concrete solutions is the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made—and it has been echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Benches—which is how we deal with the real funnel of pressures that are coming, which are driven by terrorism, starvation, war and poverty. People who make that journey and claim asylum have very often faced challenges that I could never imagine. We need to have international co-operation, because the United Kingdom cannot solve those issues alone. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met 51 countries in May of this year; has discussed with former European partners, which are still our neighbouring countries— France, Belgium and Holland—what the solutions can be; is working with the Germans; and wants to have some international action to stem that flow through the G7 and other bodies of people removing themselves from their home nations to seek asylum wherever it might be. It is an important issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked, “If not this, what is the deterrent?”. I do not want to repeat the issues today, but I have tried to set out the range and menu of measures that we are taking which we believe are going to add to that deterrence. However, the deterrence also demands that we take action against the criminal gangs that are leeching off that misery, poverty and desperation to ensure that they enrich themselves through criminal action. That is why we need international co-operation on a range of measures to focus on criminals who are using this to exploit people who are in a very vulnerable position. As of today, that may not be the deterrent that the previous Government potentially thought Rwanda was, but I think it is more effective.

Amendments 105 and 109 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing. I take the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, very seriously. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. That is the fundamental challenge that I put back to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

Again, in the spirit of the instructions from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to the House to deal with this in a sensible and noble way, I am not seeking to make difficulties for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I simply put it to him that the measures in Amendments 105 and 109 would mean that we would have to proceed with removal when there was nowhere to remove them to. That is the fundamental flaw in Amendment 109.

I repeat what I said in response to the general debate on Clause 38, that we have removed people who are unlawfully in the UK. We have seen that increase in the number of failed asylum seekers being removed. We have seen an increase in the number of foreign national prisoners removed—I have given the percentages to the House in every series of amendments we have had today, so I will not give them again now. The Government’s aim is to deliver a long-term and credible policy to ensure that we have a properly functioning immigration system. I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that, yes, it means that we are going to have to occasionally examine things in August and September that we had not considered a year ago. That is because the situation changes. Situations change, and politics needs to change. The measures in the Bill repeal an unsuccessful scheme and try to put in other measures to meet the deterrence that the noble Lord wishes to see.

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not to press his amendments and to examine in further detail the proposals that we are bringing forward to the House to achieve the objectives that we share.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I take very seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s comments about humility and trying to be constructive about how we approach this; however, we are also a party of opposition. We remain firmly of the view that the Illegal Migration Act created a framework that was real and gave our border system structure, clarity and credibility. We did so because we recognised that the status quo was unsustainable, and we knew that deterrence without enforcement is meaningless. That is why we pursued the Rwanda scheme so vigorously and still defend it as a deterrent.

At the heart of the Illegal Migration Act was a simple premise: that if someone enters this country illegally and does not meet the necessary criteria for protection, they should be removed promptly and lawfully. Our amendments in this group are intended to encourage the Government to reflect on that principle again and really think before they abandon that framework in favour of something that we say is much softer and lacks precision, urgency and the seriousness that this challenge demands. That is a political decision, but it is one with consequences.

If we do not provide our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools they need, we cannot be surprised when the system fails to deliver. We legislated for that; we recognised that the UK needs a legal basis to enforce its own immigration laws. What the Government now propose is to remove that structure without a credible alternative. That is not just a retreat—it is a risk, and it will be paid for in public confidence, in operational paralysis and in yet more lives placed in the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs. We can and must do much better. I hope the Government use this chance to make that change but, reflecting upon what has been said across your Lordships’ House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Nitrous Oxide Misuse: Drivers

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness can be assured that the Government are taking this matter seriously. As I have mentioned, we are looking at further drug and driving offences, and there is now—following the previous Government’s initiative—a ban on nitrous oxide being used for drug purposes. We need to widen the experience and understanding of that legislation and put some of the preventions in place which the noble Lord mentioned earlier. It is ultimately a matter for chief constables and police and crime commissioners whether they take action and highlight that. It is certainly an act of anti-social behaviour; it also adds to the pollution of the environment, and from my personal experience as a former official of a charity dealing with this, I know that it can lead to death at first use—that is an extremely important issue that people do not realise.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to the legislation passed by the previous Government to criminalise the possession of nitrous oxide for recreational use. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party voted against the ban, claiming that drug misuse is a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. We know that Scotland has a significant problem with drug misuse, including some high-profile court cases involving nitrous oxide. Does the Minister agree that the SNP’s lackadaisical approach to tackling drug crime is having a detrimental effect on the safety of the Scottish people?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that drug abuse, and in this case nitrous oxide abuse, is both a public health issue and a criminal justice matter. We have devolution in the United Kingdom, and criminal justice is devolved to Scotland. If I were the Minister in Scotland, I would do something different, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government. I think that there is a small election coming up in the next 12 months, where opinion of the performance of the Scottish National Party Government, of my own party and, dare I say it, of the noble Lord’s as well can be tested.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

110: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers to amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) to add a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, if satisfied that there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution.(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statement in subsection (1) is true of a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, in relation to a description of person, regulations under subsection (1) may add the country or territory or part to Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) in respect of that description of person.(3) A description for the purposes of subsection (2) may refer to—(a) sex,(b) language,(c) race, (d) religion,(e) nationality,(f) membership of a social or other group,(g) political opinion, or(h) any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(4) In deciding whether the statement in subsection (1) is true of a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, the Secretary of State—(a) must have regard to all the circumstances of the country or territory, or part (including its laws and how they are applied), and(b) must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations).(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) to omit a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, and the omission may—(a) be general, or(b) have the effect that the country or territory, or part, remains listed in Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) in respect of a description of person.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to understand why the Government have decided to remove key parts of the legal architecture that we say provided a robust legal framework for dealing with this issue. Amendment 110 seeks to reintroduce an essential power from the Illegal Migration Act which enables the Secretary of State to update, through regulation, the list of countries to which individuals can be safely removed. These are countries that meet the test of presenting no serious risk of persecution in general. I repeat the point that I made earlier: the test is “in general”. The provisions in the amendment allow that list to evolve with circumstance, reflecting real-world developments, legal reforms and international assessments.

The capacity to have that list is a crucial part of the architecture of deterrence, because the only way we will stop people risking their lives to come here illegally is if they know with certainty that doing so will not result in a permanent right to stay. That means that swift and lawful removals to safe third countries must be a central pillar of our strategy. To achieve that, we need a legal framework that enables such removals to happen. That is what this clause does; it gives the Government flexibility to respond to changing global conditions and build bilateral or multilateral returns agreements on a lawful, transparent and evidence-based footing. Without that power, our capacity to remove inadmissible claimants is drastically reduced.

It is not about denying protection to the vulnerable. Proposed new subsection (4) rightly requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the legal, social and political context of any country before designating it as safe. It allows for targeted assessments—for example, recognising where certain groups might still face harm, even if others do not. As I have suggested, this is a balanced, evidence-led provision which allows us to remove those with no right to stay, while also upholding our obligations to those who genuinely need refuge. Amendment 120 works in conference with Amendment 110 and sets out the list of safe third countries to which I have already referred. To conclude, we cannot reduce illegal migration by making it easy to stay. We reduce it by making it clear, through law and through action, that illegal entry will not be rewarded. We hope the Government can set out why they have now abandoned that strategy.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I return to something I said in the earlier groups of amendments. The country that is at the heart of so much of this debate and previous debates is Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has introduced his amendments with customary coherence but, ultimately, I do not think he has thought through some of the countries he is talking about. He certainly has not responded to the points that were made earlier about Rwanda.

It is not just about Rwanda. The problem is that this is about generalities, and we are required by the obligations that we have entered into to get down to specifics. I shall give one illustration of what I mean by that from another example in this long list in Amendment 120—that is, the country of Nigeria. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report, referred to in earlier proceedings on this Bill, quotes the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as saying that,

“while designation of safe countries may be used as a procedural tool to prioritise or accelerate the examination of applications in carefully circumscribed situations”,

which is really what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was saying to us, and I do not think that there is conflict about that,

“it does not displace the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim”.

The UNHCR notes that the risk of refoulement in the absence of individualised assessments is unacceptable. I refer the noble Lord, if I may, as well as the Minister when he comes to respond, to paragraph 122 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report that deals with that.

The JCHR concluded that it shared the concerns of its predecessor committee—because this is not a new issue; it has been around for predecessor committees. I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, because she and I seem to have gone around this course many times over the past few years. It said:

“We share the concerns of our predecessor Committee that, whilst the states listed may be considered safe in general, this does not guarantee the safety of all individuals from these states, especially those who are members of particular social groups facing persecution. It must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution upon return to make a protection or human rights claim which must be considered on its merits in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government chooses to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, it should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe states, with a particular consideration of the rights of minority groups”.


Again, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, accepted that there would be regular review, but I would like him to respond further, when he comes to reply to the group of amendments, on how he looks at the position of minority groups in some of these countries. These are not just groups that are defined by issues such as ethnicity, religion, gender or orientation: it is also about what happens inside particular countries. A country such as Nigeria may be safe, and that is the example that I shall turn to in a moment, if you are in Lagos or Abuja, but it is not necessarily safe in Benue state or northern Nigeria—depending, again, on aspects of your background. How will that be dealt with in a list of this kind?

I have a dislike of these kinds of lists anyway, as a principle. I do not know that they help matters. We should look at every single case and country on the merits of the arguments. These are things that we should keep abreast of without having to draw up lists. I shall give a specific example of the dangers of this one-size-fits-all approach in what can be variable conditions, depending on many issues—everything from minority ethnicity or religion to gender or orientation. It is an issue that I raised in the debates on the Nationality and Borders Bill, when we were debating it on 8 February 2022, and again on Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, and I refer to Hansard of 5 July 2023.

I cited the case of Mubarak Bala, president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for so-called blasphemy committed on Facebook. Nigeria is one of 71 countries that criminalise blasphemy, and as long as those laws exist people will face persecution, prosecution and imprisonment. As I have said, some will even face the possibility of death and be pushed to find safe haven abroad. During those debates, I also raised the case of Usman Buda, a Muslim, who was murdered in Sokoto state in north-west Nigeria because it was alleged that he had blasphemed. I raised the case of the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel, a Christian, at Shehu Shagari College of Education, again following an unsubstantiated accusation of blasphemy.

Last year, I raised the plight in your Lordships’ House of Nigerian Christians in the northern and middle belt states and pointed out that some 82% of Christians killed for their faith in the previous year were in Nigeria—4,998 Christians were slaughtered, with 200 murdered during the Christmas services in 2023. The highly respected voluntary organisation and charity Open Doors reports that

“Christians in Nigeria continue to be terrorised with devastating impunity”

with

“abductions for ransom, sexual violence and death … leaving a trail of grief and trauma”.

I met Dominic and Margaret Attah, who were survivors of the Boko Haram Pentecost attack at St Francis Xavier Church in Owo, where 30 were murdered. Margaret’s legs had been blown off. She wanted to know why nobody had been brought to justice. I asked the then Minister, who told me in reply:

“We continue to call for those who committed this attack to be brought to justice and held to account”.


Needless to say, they have not been brought to account. Nor have the abductors of Leah Sharibu, who was abducted on 19 February 2018 by ISIS West Africa from the Government Girls Science and Technology College in Dapchi, Yobe State. Leah was told to convert; she refused, and was raped, impregnated and enslaved. She is still held captive. I promised her mother, Rebecca, who I showed around your Lordships’ House, that I would lose no opportunity to raise her case. I have done so on a number of occasions with Ministers.

When I see that this country is safe, according to the amendment, to send men back to, I wonder what will happen to these men if they come from a particular religious group or one that holds a set of views that are unacceptable, or a group that is defined by their sexual orientation. The Government’s travel advice contradicts the presumption that it is safe, particularly for gay men:

“Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Nigeria with penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Some northern states observe Sharia Law which can prescribe the death penalty for same-sex sexual activity … Same-sex relationships are generally viewed as socially unacceptable in Nigerian society. There is an increased risk of violence, attacks and threats, such as blackmail and intimidation against anyone being thought to be part of the LGBT+ community or supporting their rights”.


This advice is based on facts, not wishful thinking that adding Nigeria to this list will somehow make it a safe country. We have got to follow facts and evidence. Similarly, atheists face significant risks, including discrimination, marginalisation, ostracism, violence and, as I said, potentially death, particularly in the northern states. No differentiation is made in this list between different parts of the country. No distinction is made according to people’s minority status. It demonstrates the dangers of drawing up lists of this kind. I plead with the Official Opposition to give this further thought before we are perhaps asked to vote on this on Report, which I hope we will not be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is fair and reasonable for a tribunal to look at those representations accordingly. In this legislation, we are trying to remove the effective provisions which meant that the Rwanda offer was in place under legislation. As we have done through the immigration White Paper and other statements, we are continually monitoring how the practice is going to be implemented once this has been completed. I will certainly reflect on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has made, but the principle before the Committee today is that the list of countries without the provisions we have already agreed are being repealed or the amendment which has already been withdrawn is superfluous. Backed up by the comments of the noble Lord, it also means that what is deemed to be a safe country may not be a safe country. There are elements that can be examined and representations that can be made to ensure that people who either have a characteristic or are from a particular region in a country can make the case to the tribunal that their individual circumstances demand a decision not to be removed.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Of course, the Minister is correct that, with the prior amendment having been withdrawn, then as a matter of technicality these amendments, if pressed, would struggle. However, I feel it is important to reiterate the general point being made: that the amendments are not rhetorical but seek to reintroduce practical, enforceable tools that were part of a wider strategy to restore control over our borders.

I apologise for not addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, before now, but the answer is in Amendment 110 and the proposed new clause under discussion: that the power exercised by the Secretary of State has to be a general one—it cannot take account of a particular individual assessment or scenario. That is why in its first subsection the amendment says that the Secretary of State must be

“satisfied that there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution”.

Having made the general point, I would suggest that, thereafter, the Secretary of State is allowed to take into account specificity, in effect, and to say, for instance, that the statement in subsection (1) is true of a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, in relation to a description of person. Therefore, already, a country can be divided into its constituent parts.

Subsection (3) states that the description can include

“sex … language … race … religion … nationality … membership of a social or other group … or… any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this allows a particular attribute or characteristic to come into play. She is right that the various characteristics described in that subsection do not mirror protected characteristics in UK discrimination law. There is an absence of disability; political opinion is not a protected characteristic in UK discrimination law, but it is included in this list. The catch-all in subsection (3)(h) allows that specificity to be created, and for the protection to exist.

In conclusion—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may raise a point which he has referred to but which has not been referred to in the debate, which is “part of a country”? Is it possible to be assured that if one is returning someone to a country where in one part there is a problem, that country—through its internal procedures—will not move somebody into that part?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am very happy to butt in and to say that was exactly the point I wanted to make. The noble Lord referred us to subsection (1) in the amendment and the phrase “in general”. That in itself needs to be fleshed out as to what it really means. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has asked the right question.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their interventions. “In general” is a well-known phrase; it is used in the 2002 Act and in this subsection. If one is to imagine a Secretary of State taking a decision, it has to be a generalised decision. It has to take into account a general view of whether that country, or part of that country, is safe.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I would say what the “part of a country” aspect allows the Secretary of State to do is to specify in the list—which is an evolving list—whether one part of the country is safe.

In light of everything that has been said—I am grateful for all the thoughtful contributions from across your Lordships’ House—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

There will be a sizeable number of people who cannot be returned. This amendment probes the impact of the changes brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act. Have the Government assessed the number of asylum seekers from Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan who have exhausted their rights of appeal? Will the Government be seeking to return these people? If so, are they seriously intending to return them to those countries? If it is not safe to do so, what will the Government do? That is the series of questions we have to ask on this matter. It is about looking at what is left behind by the actions of this Bill, and we have to examine the legislation we now fall back on. That is the reason for these probing amendments. I am sorry it has taken such a long time. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

The amendments in this group do not require a great deal of commentary from this side of the House. It will not come as any great surprise to the noble Lord, Lord German, given that his Amendment 116 proposes removing the majority of the 2022 Act, and we have spent the last few hours trying to reinsert the Illegal Migration Act, that we do not agree with the amendment.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply. We have made this point many times. We believe that the number of people coming into this country illegally is far too high and we must take urgent steps now to stop this happening, with a strengthened legal regime, not a weakened regime, to tackle this issue. The noble Lord’s amendment would weaken and undermine our efforts to remove those who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. I cannot say more than that.

Amendment 118 relates to the impact assessment. We on these Benches are not opposed to the principle of reviewing the impact of government policy, but we do not recognise the justification given for this; nor do we believe that this amendment is necessary. Therefore, with those brief remarks, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed questions. At 10.19 pm, it is a great test of stamina to examine those issues in some detail. The noble Lord is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed. I should start by making it very clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, as I have mentioned before. We want it to operate swiftly, fairly and firmly, and to ensure that the rules are properly enforced. That means we need to deal with the backlog of issues that are before the House as a whole.

The noble Lord raised a number of particular issues. I am very happy to go through the detail I have on inadmissibility of asylum claims, the UK’s interpretation of key concepts of the refugee convention, and Sections 30 to 39. If he wants me to do that now, I can. If he wants me to write to him so he can reflect on it more slowly, before Report, I can do that. I am happy to take his advice on how he wishes me to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

121: Schedule 1, page 67, line 7, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes what amendments to the definition of “relevant matters” the Government might seek to make.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this is a busy group of, essentially, probing amendments around the subject of immigration advisers and immigration service providers. I shall do my best to be as brief as possible. There are a lot of probing amendments in this group. I hope the Minister can take this as an opportunity to address some of the questions that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I have raised through these amendments, although it may be—I cannot pre-empt him—that, as he undertook to do in relation to an earlier group of probing amendments, he chooses to do so in writing or tonight in the Chamber.

Amendment 121 seeks to probe the very broad powers in the Bill to amend the definition of what constitutes a “relevant matter” in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As it stands, the text appears to give the Government significant latitude to reinterpret or even redefine that term at will. I ask the Minister what sort of scope he envisages here: how far could this power reach and in what circumstances does he believe it would be necessary to use it? When legislation confers such a wide discretion, it is right that this House seeks clarity on both its limits and justification.

Amendment 122 seeks to understand why the Immigration Services Commissioner would need to give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice. This question is somewhat self-explanatory and I hope that the Minister can clarify it in his response.

Amendment 123 would in turn remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the amount charged in a variable penalty notice. Variation in the amount charged under such a notice should be clear, justified and open to scrutiny. As it stands, we are being asked to approve a power whose future use and financial impact is presently unknown. Parliament should have some assurance about how we will be kept informed of such changes. Will further variations be subject to debate or are we to accept them after the fact? If we achieve clarity now, I suggest that that would avoid disputes later. I hope, again, that the Minister can provide such clarity.

Amendment 124 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the tribunal backlogs on the operation of the monetary penalties that the Immigration Services Commissioner can impose. As with much of our discussion on the Bill, backlogs and delays are central to how effective any enforcement process will be. In the context of appeals, such delays can too often be exploited. Vexatious claims are lodged not with the aim of overturning a penalty but to take advantage of delays, which can prevent prohibitions from being enforced and allow those in breach to avoid consequences for longer than is reasonable. Therefore, we need to be mindful of the role backlogs play, not only as an administrative challenge but as a weakness in the system that can be deliberately abused. This amendment seeks to bring attention to that issue and assure transparency over the scale of that problem in the First-tier Tribunal. The scheme that we are creating here can work only if the appeals process is not allowed to become a flaw in its design.

Amendment 125 is in a similar spirit to Amendment 123 in that it seeks to incorporate greater oversight into the use of the powers granted to the Government to specify fees and amounts. Oversight allows us to do our job as the Opposition properly, namely in holding the Government to account and checking that what is being done is both right and effective. We need this to be built into the legislation as much as possible if it is to work. Again, I hope the Minister can tell us how he will ensure that this happens.

Briefly, Amendments 128 and 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, require little commentary from us as it is a question put directly to the Minister. But I add that it tangentially speaks to the point that we on these Benches are making about proportionality and oversight. Clarity from the Minister on these points would be welcome. Amendment 130 is consequential to the amendment to Schedule 1, page 78, line 9.

To conclude, at its heart this group is about asking questions and probing the Government—one of the most important functions of this House—and any clarity that the Minister can provide will be welcome in order to ensure that there is proper oversight of the powers of the Bill, that proportionality is built into its operation and that the system it creates is both effective and ready to function from day one. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us of that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 128 and 129. This issue was brought to our attention by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. I want to make it quite clear that this is not a self-serving pair of amendments. It is about the fees charged for services by the commissioner for things such as competence assessments, registration, training, events accreditation and advice going beyond the cost to the IAA of exercising the function.

The point that ILPA makes is that if the fees charged are a burden on practitioners, which they will be, they should not be more of a burden than they need to be to pay for the functions. That is in itself a barrier to access to justice. When we come to the amendment on legal aid, we will, I am sure, talk about the importance of access to justice, its place in the rule of law and so on. I have made a note for that amendment to talk about the terrifically hard work that it is being an immigration legal practitioner. When I was in practice many years ago, I shied away from immigration work because, even then, it was so difficult.

There is a shortage of practitioners. It is important that they are not deterred from maintaining their staffing numbers, upskilling existing advisers or recruiting. It may sound counterintuitive given that what we are talking about is, in essence, assistance and support from the IAA, but we must not see this impeding the growth in the sector’s capacity and the supply of high-quality advice. That is important in maintaining a good asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give a one-word answer, which I hope will be helpful. Yes.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for comprehensively explaining the Government’s position on these probing amendments. I listened very carefully to what he said. I was not entirely convinced by all of it, but satisfied enough that, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 121 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to my Amendment 188. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Harper. This amendment inserts a new clause to exclude illegal migrants and foreign criminals from GDPR provisions in relation to personal data processing by authorities carrying out immigration enforcement functions.

We need to be clear about the principles at stake here: security, accuracy and the rule of law. If we are serious about defending the integrity of our borders and our domestic security, we must ensure that those on the front line, our law enforcement agencies, have the full set of legal tools they need to do their jobs effectively. That is a thread that has run through many of our remarks from these Benches in Committee, for the important reason that we expect these organisations to protect us and to uphold the rule of law. We must do all we can to help them do that.

--- 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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I will again speak against the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I recognise that both these amendments are probing amendments, but I suggest they are unnecessary. Clause 16 already provides a robust and comprehensive defence of reasonable excuse for those charged with the offence and collecting information for use in immigration crime. Subsection 8(b)(v) explicitly references those preparing to provide medical care or emergency shelter or supplies. In plain terms, that is humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, subsection 8(c) goes further by protecting those acting on behalf of bona fide organisations assisting asylum seekers. So it is our view that humanitarian activity is not only covered but it is expressly protected in the text. Therefore, to insert an additional, open-ended reference to humanitarian support simply risks introducing ambiguity to a legal provision, which already strikes a careful balance between protecting genuine humanitarian actors while still enabling the prosecution of those who aid illegal immigration. It is vital that the law is clear and enforceable and it is our view that the clause already offers wide and meaningful protection to doctors, volunteers, NGOs and others engaged in humanitarian work.

On Amendment 60, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I completely understand the desire to ensure that legal professionals are not inadvertently caught up in Clause 16, but I disagree with the amendment as it stands. It seeks to add a new limb to the reasonable excuse defence, namely that a person was carrying out a legal activity as defined by the Legal Services Act. It is arguable that that protection already exists in the clause as drafted; it is a flexible and general defence in terms of reasonable excuse, and subsection (8) sets out several examples of what that defence might include: journalism, academic research, rescue efforts et cetera, but crucially also those acting on behalf of legitimate asylum support organisations. I respectfully say that this is a deliberately broad and protective provision. It gives courts ample discretion to protect those acting lawfully, including legal professionals who are working to assist asylum seekers.

As I said, I understand that these are probing amendments, so I am sure it would be of benefit to the whole Committee to hear the Minister’s response, although, as it stands, our perspective on this matter is that the clause as drafted provides adequate protections for those acting in good faith.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel 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 German (LD)]

My Lords, the debate has obviously spanned beyond the amendments before us, but it is worth stating at the outset that the focus of these amendments is to determine that the provisions are aimed at the particular people who are breaking the law—the smugglers. The focus has to be that it helps law enforcement and the judiciary to focus their resources on the people that the Government really want to apprehend in order to tackle the criminal gangs. There are words—which I will come to in a moment—on which I agree a different definition might be more helpful, but it is worth while repeating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the international regulations and rules that guide us and we put around ourselves and the importance of those.

I am reluctant to go into this field of the reinterpretation of the ECHR, but one mistake relates to the fact that some countries signed an unaddressed letter which gave no indication whatever of what changes to the ECHR they were looking for. The person who was supposed to receive it read about it in the newspapers. I contrast that arrangement, where nothing could be made of the letter because it gave no sense of what was to be changed, to the approach of the British Secretary of State for Justice, who approached the matter in a proper manner and spoke to the people concerned, the right Committee of Ministers, who are responsible for any review of the ECHR. There is already a set of motions in place to enable that discussion to occur. It would be worth while trying to understand what people in other countries want to do and what they need to happen in order to change, but those discussions are under way because, essentially, this is a living document that needs to be changed, interpreted and looked at as time goes by, and that is happening at present.

We should be clear that these amendments would simply treat the people who are coming here with a deal of compassion. I absolutely agree that we have to separate genuine asylum seekers from the rest. We cannot do that by our own legislation until they arrive here. There are no routes by which people can arrive here, apart from the few which would not affect the people from the countries who are most affected in this matter. What makes sense with these amendments—maybe not entirely in the words they use—is that they are trying to distinguish who we are going for and who we are gunning at, as it were.

Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that the scope of the offences in Clauses 13 and 14 apply only to the smugglers. The amendments seek to link the offences to financial and material gain. If there is another way of explaining the financial and material gain as being the method by which you determine a smuggler, then obviously it would be worth noting.

In that respect, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about how to deal effectively with the migrants situation. Fortunately, I went to visit the site of the Jungle in Calais two weeks ago. It is now fields; there is nothing there but fields, grass and animals grazing, and that is because the French authorities dealt with groups of people to make sure that they fit with the strategy they are adopting. They had no complaints about the way that was working at the present time. Maybe times have changed, and maybe people need to be thinking differently.

Amendment 35 proposes that the defence excuse in Clause 13 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”—

and that is the question. In mentioning “certain circumstances”, one needs to define what those circumstances are; otherwise, the courts would not be able to make the appropriate case work.

Amendment 38 suggests that the scope of offence of Clause 14 should include for financial or material gain. That is the distinguishing factor between those who are smuggled and those who are not.

Amendment 44 suggests that the defence excuse in Clause 14 should ensure protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, one has to define the words “certain circumstances”, because otherwise it becomes too general.

Amendment 57 suggests that the reasonable excuse defence in Clause 16 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, that wording needs to be tightened up.

Finally, Amendment 203 would provide

“a statutory defence for refugees in certain circumstances”

for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Obviously, there is a need for tightening up in this matter to ensure that we can separate out the people for whom the Bill is intended to deal with: those who are causing the misery, those who are trafficking and those who are smuggling and those who are spread around Europe to make sure that these schemes work. These are the people whom the Bill should be aimed at and is aimed at. All these amendments would do is make sure that we entirely focus our efforts on those people who are causing these criminal acts.

Therefore, I suggest that these amendments have a right sense of direction in what they intend. They enshrine the international regulations which we sit within. It is not just one convention; it is quite clear from the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that there are a raft of international conventions, laws and rules that we sit behind. We are part of that international way of dealing with matters, and if we lose that way of dealing with it and do not follow it through, we will never be able to solve something which is so international in its nature.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their speeches in this group. Again, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the rationale behind these amendments. The general thrust of all noble Lords’ amendments, however, is to seek to impose further limits on the exercise of legal powers designed to tackle people-smuggling gangs and their supply chains.

On all these new offences, we need to be both clear and bold in providing our law enforcement agencies and our courts with the legal tools and powers they need to be robust in tackling the gangs, who are both the root cause of and the major beneficiaries from this problem. We on these Benches have rightly criticised the Government for the rhetoric around smashing the gangs—which in our view, at least at the moment, is empty rhetoric—but it is a clear fact that we need to tackle the criminal gangs, and it is right that we use this as an opportunity to shape our legislative framework so that we can do that as effectively as possible.

Amendments 33 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would add an additional demand: for the person to have committed an offence, it must be demonstrated as well that they have financially benefited from the supply of a relevant article for use in connection with an offence. Again, I understand the rationale and the intentions behind the amendment, but I put myself against it and support the current Government—again, a slightly rare position to be in. Unlike other aspects of the Bill, it seems clear to us on these Benches that, as it stands, the text of Clauses 13, 14 and 16, which create these offences, is adequate, clear and sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we have Amendments 51 and 51B in this group. Amendment 51 would add mobile phones and chargers to the list of relevant articles. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is just leaving; he may be coming back. There are innocent examples of the use of mobile phones in the JCHR’s report. Mobile phones are very common, and we are looking for proportionality in all this. Some years ago, I quite often heard opponents of asylum seekers and refugees, who were outraged, say, “They even have mobile phones”, as if that was some sort of great luxury and that having them meant they would be perfectly capable of getting, possibly not first-class seats, but certainly seats on a plane, because they were clearly very civilised, well-equipped and moneyed. I have not actually heard that for some time. Mobile phones are not a luxury these days; they enable asylum seekers to keep in touch with their family. I think that is hugely important, not for any sinister reason but because they are a lifeline for mental health, quite apart from more practical examples.

Amendment 51B speaks to the regulations which I mentioned in the last group. The Secretary of State can, by regulations, alter the list of relevant articles, and my amendment would provide for consultation with organisations that aim, without charge, to assist asylum seekers. I think that that point was made by one of those organisations in its briefings to noble Lords. After all, if there is to be a change, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the people who know what happens on the ground—I am not suggesting that the Government do not—and who have that particular take on it should be consulted.

I have signed Amendment 56, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has spoken. People travel in groups—not everybody, but some people—and it seems natural, to me anyway, that a husband would perhaps carry documents for his wife and children, or a mother would carry documents for her children. I think that it would be right to make that change.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this group of amendments around the safeguards to the offences. As I have already said on previous groups, it is the position of His Majesty’s Opposition Benches that the new criminal offences in the Bill must be as watertight as possible. We know that people-smuggling criminal gangs are incredibly innovative in their efforts to continue running their illegal operations, concocting ever more ingenious methods to circumvent the law. We must do all we can to frustrate that. To do so, we need to ensure that there are no loopholes that could be used to evade legal repercussions.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, seems, to us, with respect, to be unnecessary. As the Bill stands, the person in question already has a defence if they are able to show that they were carrying out a rescue, or if

“they were acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.

In my view, if someone has broken a law, as they will have done if they are charged under this clause, without being able to avail themselves of those two specific defences, then they have committed an offence for which they should be held liable. The amendment proposes that we, in effect, waive the law if the person shows that their actions were self-relating. That is a dangerous precedent to establish—that someone acting to benefit only themselves can get away with actions that are demonstrably illegal. If someone knowingly engages in criminal activity and is unable to have recourse to the defences set out in the Bill, we need to be clear that they have committed a crime and should still be liable as a result. In our view, the amendment would blow wide open the rigour and focus of the offences as currently drafted, which is the opposite of the strong message we need to send to those who—we cannot forget—are illegally violating our borders.

Amendments 50 and 62 would mean that, for the purposes of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, any offence committed under the relevant clauses would not be regarded as a particularly serious crime. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explain the rationale for the amendments, and I completely understand the concern that lies behind them. I think I am right in saying that the convention talks about constituting

“a danger to the community of that country”,

and I completely accept that that is very strong language, but I think it is important to consider this in context. Illegal migrants enter the UK without going through any checks whatever. It can be almost impossible to find out who such migrants are, where they have come from, what their history is, and, fundamentally, what sort of people they are. Safe and legal routes are safe and legal precisely because they answer these questions. Let us not forget the incident that happened in May, when five Iranian nationals were arrested for planning what the Home Secretary described as a major terror attack. They arrived in the United Kingdom by irregular means, including small boats and a lorry, before claiming asylum. One of those people was taken out of his taxpayer-funded accommodation when he was arrested. Is it not clear that those men constituted a danger to the community of our country? We need to appreciate the risks that we run when faced with this system and with the problem that we have no idea of who those people are or the potential risk they pose. The police and security services were successful in foiling that attack, but we cannot guarantee that that would happen indefinitely. This problem obviously and demonstrably risks the safety of our national community, and we need to engage with the law in a way that reflects this. For that reason, we oppose those amendments.