Undocumented Migrants
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that, when I was last a Minister in the Home Office, we had an identity card scheme in place that was scrapped by the then-incoming Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It is an expensive business to re-jig ID cards, but all options are always being examined by this Government. I am genuinely sorry that the Coalition Government took the decision at the time to scrap that deal.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, leading on from the question from my noble friend Lord Massey, this week we were due to see the start of the Government’s much-vaunted one-in, one-out returns deal with France. However, due to the ongoing human rights claims and last-minute legal challenges, no one has yet returned to France, on the flights that left yesterday or today. Does the Minister not think that now is the time to endorse Conservative proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration and asylum matters to prevent this very issue occurring in the future?
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsMonday 8th September 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (4 Sep 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. This amendment pertains to legal aid for those detained persons. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid is already provided for those who bring asylum cases or other matters such as immigration bail, certain applications by victims of domestic abuse or trafficking, proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, asylum support applications and applications made by separated children. Put simply, this support is already clearly in place. It is our position that extensive provision is already made and at significant cost.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Ludford. I have also heard contributions from the Floor of the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, all of which were broadly in support of my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 137.
This amendment would impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours. I am going to repeat what noble Lords have said already, because it is important to put it on the record. People detained under immigration powers in prisons and in immigration removal centres are provided initially with 30 minutes of free legal aid advice through the detained duty advice scheme—DDAS. This is a triaged appointment which supports people to meet with a legal provider who may provide further advice, subject to the matter being within scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility. I want to be clear that there is this 30-minute availability, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is important to re-emphasise that, following that DDAS assessment, whether a legal representative accepts or takes on a case is subject to a merit test and to a decision about independent legal representation, in line with legal aid. There is already some scope for reassurance. I hope that the Committee can accept that this well-established service is in place to provide people with quick and easy access to legal provision.
I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Bach mentioned the take-up. I fully accept that this is an important matter for him, and for the Committee and the Government to consider. Take-up is monitored by officials from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It will be examined in detail. I am happy to look at how we can improve take-up of the initial provision, but the initial provision is there.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his amendment, which seeks to collect and publish data about overseas students who have committed criminal offences leading to the revocation of their student visas.
When immigrants commit crimes, we need to understand whether there are patterns that suggest wider or systemic abuses of the system. Data of this kind has immense practical importance. It allows us to identify risks, ensure accountability and take informed decisions about how to strengthen our Immigration Rules. When we talk about borders, we must do so with an eye to safety, fairness and national interest. The British people rightly expect that those who come to this country will contribute to it through our economy, workplace, communities and civic life. The vast majority of overseas students do just that, enriching our universities and our society. But when a small minority commit offences, we must have the tools to know about it, track it and respond effectively.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, he has tried time and again, unfortunately in vain, to get the Home Office to release these statistics. The Answer my noble friend received to his Written Question on 7 April, that official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, is not particularly helpful. I hope the Minister will be able to finally give my noble friend the answer that he deserves. This amendment seeks to provide that clarity.
Amendments 198 and 199, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, go to the heart of what it means to exercise control over our borders in a way that serves our national interest. The first amendment makes it clear that family migration through spouse and civil partner visas must be subject to sensible limits and rigorous criteria. This is about making sure that those who come here are ready to contribute, not to extract; to work, not to remain idle; and to build, not to burden.
Our economy, jobs market, public services and national identity all depend on a social contract: that people pay in before they take out. That is the foundation of our tax system, the National Health Service, schools, housing and every element of our welfare state. Introducing a salary threshold of £38,700 is not a punitive measure; it is common sense. It would ensure that new arrivals will be net contributors to this country, helping us to strengthen our economy at a time when the Government’s mismanagement has left us in a dreadful state. It would reassure the British people that migration is working for them, not against them, and it would help to rebuild the trust that is so essential if public confidence in our immigration system is to endure.
The second amendment addresses an equally important issue: the question of sovereignty. Put simply, we cannot allow this country’s ability to remove those with no right to remain to be dictated by the whims of foreign Governments. Our domestic policy must never be determined by third countries which frustrate deportations by refusing to co-operate with basic verification of identity. This amendment would strengthen the Government’s hand by making visa penalties mandatory when other countries refuse to play their part.
The link between border control and national well-being could not be clearer. Our economy, our jobs market, our communities and our state services depend on a system that is fair, firm and respected. The British people are generous, but they are not fools; they want an immigration system that supports growth, rewards contribution and protects our national autonomy. These amendments deliver on those principles; they are proportionate, robust and urgently needed. I urge the Government to recognise their merit and adopt them.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I will say something about Amendments 198 and 199, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Amendment 198 would, as I understand it, specify a maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another. If I were not already married, I would be exceptionally aggrieved to be told that my spouse, from whatever country she may come, would not be permitted to join me in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that I am a British citizen, because too many spouses or civil partners had already entered this country in the last year or because, looking at proposed new subsection (5), the country concerned cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations. I do not know where 7% comes from rather than 6% or 8%, but that is what it provides.
It is not difficult to see that such arbitrary restrictions on spouses or civil partners coming to this country would be a manifest breach of this country’s international obligations under Article 8 in relation to family rights. It is also not difficult to see what the reaction of our closest allies—the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—would be to being told that their citizens cannot join their spouse in this country. Reciprocal measures of this nature would be highly likely to be adopted, to the detriment of everybody. It is also plain from this amendment that these arbitrary restrictions on numbers would apply irrespective of whether the person coming from abroad is to work here and irrespective of whether the spouse in this country, the British citizen, is able to accommodate and provide for them. I am afraid that this is simply not well thought out.
It also requires in proposed new subsection (10)(b) that the applicant in this country provides evidence that the happy couple were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application. So, my beloved and I are to be arbitrarily prevented from living in this country together for at least two years. I cannot begin to understand the logic, the rationality or the justification of such a measure. I hope the Minister will tell the Committee that Amendment 198 is unacceptable.
Amendment 199 is equally unacceptable. It would impose, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, a mandatory obligation on the Government to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. The Government already have ample powers in their discretion to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. It makes no sense whatever to impose a mandatory duty on the Government to impose visa penalties. For this reason, the Government may well take the view that it is far more productive and effective to inform the country concerned of its failures, to negotiate with it and to seek to secure a resolution to the problem. A mandatory duty simply serves no sensible purpose.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(2A) After section 3(1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State must, where a person breaches any of the conditions of their leave to enter or remain under subsection (1)(c), make a deportation order against the person.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that anyone who breached a condition of their leave to enter or remain would be deported from the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 146 and 147, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
At the heart of these amendments is the principle of conditionality. Where an individual is granted conditional leave to enter or remain in this country, that permission is given on very clear terms. We need to be clear that these conditions are not arbitrary or frivolous. They are carefully set out to protect the fundamental interests of our economy, the integrity of our communities and the sustainability of our public funds. If those conditions are broken then the privilege of remaining in the United Kingdom should be forfeited. To do otherwise would render the entire conditionality regime meaningless. Rules that cannot be enforced are not rules at all; they are invitations to abuse and exploitation, and they undermine the trust of the British people in our immigration system.
The amendments before us are common sense. They would require that, where an individual breached the conditions of their leave, a deportation order must follow. That is a proportionate consequence, one that would reinforce the principle that with the right to stay comes the responsibility to comply. This is also about fairness to those who abide by the rules—fairness to the taxpayer who shoulders the cost of our public services, and fairness to our communities who deserve confidence that immigration is properly managed.
These are key aspects of government administration. Without robust enforcement, our borders cannot be effectively controlled and our laws risk becoming toothless. Through these amendments, we are providing the Government with the tools they need to deliver on their own stated objective of a firm but fair immigration system. The amendments are practical, enforceable and just. They would ensure that our conditionality regime had meaning, that our rules had effect and that the British people could have confidence that their borders were being properly secured.
On the question that Clause 43 does not stand part of the Bill, we on these Benches must disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not need to go into great detail on the point. Clause 43 pertains to conditions on limited leave to enter or remain, but we on these Benches are clear that, where this status is granted, it is vital that strict conditions are both met and enforced, and that anyone found to have broken those conditions should be deported. The Government have a duty to control and manage immigration in the interests of our country. We say that removing those conditions undermines the Government’s ability to do that, so I cannot support it.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raises an interesting point in reference to the Immigration Act 2016 on the process of being granted bail accommodation. I too would be grateful, alongside the noble Lord, to hear from the Minister what the Government’s assessment of this is, whether it is a problem that they have identified and what plans they have to mitigate it. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled a notice to oppose Clause 43, which has been signed by a former immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has just said, so I shall make it clear what the amendment is about. We are not trying to stop the Government doing what they say they need to do, but we are objecting to a means of doing it that is arguably unnecessary and which is certainly exorbitant—indeed, dangerously so.
The provision that Clause 43 would amend is Section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, under the title:
“General provisions for regulation and control”.
Section 3(1) is indeed general in its scope. It provides for conditions to be imposed on any person who is given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. That includes those who are here on a student visa, a business visa or a spousal visa. The conditions that can currently be imposed on the grant of such visas do not appear in the amendment. I remind noble Lords what they are: they include the power to issue visas for certain types of work only, and the power to require visa holders to maintain themselves and their dependants without recourse to public funds. They are fair conditions, and they are well understood by those who are subject to them. Those people include—and I declare an interest—one of my sons-in-law, who is on the five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain. The happy couple have settled in Norwich, but I try not to hold that against them.
Clause 43, if we were to pass it into law, would allow the Secretary of State to impose on any of these visa holders such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit. No limit of any kind is placed on this power, and its potential severity is shown by the illustrative restrictions given in Clause 43(2): electronic tagging, a curfew to operate in a place specified by the Secretary of State for unlimited periods of day or night, and requirements on individuals not to enter a specified area—exclusion zones—and not to leave a specified area, so-called inclusion zones.
Such conditions are not entirely without precedent in our law. They will be familiar to your Lordships from the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, introduced in the TPIM Act 2011 and echoed in Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023, for those believed to be involved in foreign power threat activity. It might be thought extraordinary enough if this clause allowed individuals whose only crime is to have studied here or married a British citizen to be treated like terrorist suspects, but it is worse than that. Clause 43 would introduce a materially harsher regime than TPIMs in at least three respects.
First, there is the threshold for their use. TPIMs require a reasonable belief on the part of the Secretary of State that the subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Clause 43, by contrast, is universal in its application. There is no threshold. Even the most blameless of migrants, whose only crime is to have come here for a wholly legitimate purpose, may in law be subject to its full rigour.
Secondly, there is the scope. The measures that appear in Clause 43(2) are all familiar from Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act, but the range of possible TPIMs is at least finite. Not even in respect of those believed to be terrorists did Parliament trust the Government with the unlimited power to impose, in the words of Clause 43,
“such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.
Thirdly, there are the safeguards. TPIMs can be imposed only after the Home Secretary has obtained both the permission of the High Court and the confirmation of the CPS that it is not feasible to prosecute the subject for any criminal offence. No such safeguard exists in Clause 43, which would allow the severest restrictions on personal liberty to be imposed by the Executive without the intervention of a court on a potentially vast range of people, without any requirement for consultation, authorisation, automatic judicial review of the kind that exists for TPIMs, or oversight.
Clause 43 came late to this Bill. It was introduced in Committee in the Commons. No attempt was made to defend its breadth of application, but the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Angela Eagle, did explain the limited circumstances in which the Government proposed to use the new powers for which they were asking. It was intended for use, she said:
“Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 265.]
It was intended to allow the same conditions to be placed on such persons as they might have been subjected to under immigration bail. She said:
“The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 268.]
Speaking for myself, that objective is entirely understandable, indeed defensible, though I pause to say that the definition of extremism is worryingly uncertain. Given the Government’s limited ambitions for the use of this clause, can the Minister explain why the existing powers to issue TPIMs, serious crime prevention orders and measures under Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 are considered insufficient? They contain better safeguards and seem to meet precisely the cases that the Minister has in mind. Indeed, serious crime prevention orders are to be extended further by Part 3 of this Bill. If I am right about that, there is no need for Clause 43, but I am sure the Minister will explain.
Even if these existing powers are not sufficient, any new power must surely be tailored to its intended target, rather than to the vast range of innocent visa holders covered by Clause 43 in its current form. That is what the Constitution Committee had in mind when we recommended that the power be narrowed and that safeguards on its use be included in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported in similar terms. For anyone who is interested in more detail, I can recommend the useful briefings from Amnesty and the Public Law Project.
No one doubts for a moment the good faith of the Minister or his colleagues, but to legislate for unlimited powers and trust to assurances from the Dispatch Box about the narrow scope of their intended use would not just be poor legislative practice but an abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny at the very time when that scrutiny is most needed. The courts have no regard to ministerial assurances, save when the terms of an Act are ambiguous. That, as noble Lords know, is a rare eventuality.
No one who looks at the opinion polls can be confident that all possible future Governments would apply Clause 43 with the restraint to which this Government have committed. To enact Clause 43 would be a gift-wrapped present to any future Government who wished to threaten or erode the rights of immigrants across the board, without thresholds or oversight. If this clause is needed at all, I hope the Minister will agree that it should at least be confined in the Bill to the circumstances where that need arises.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That point has been made, and I will discuss that with my colleagues in government. Clause 43 as drafted is before the Committee today, but there are opportunities to discuss it further if the noble Lord is not happy with any assurances that we can give outside the Committee to table amendments that can be debated and voted upon in due course. I will leave it at that.
Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach seeks to clarify the eligibility criteria for bail accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Under this provision, the Secretary of State has the power to provide accommodation to someone in exceptional circumstances only when they have been granted immigration bail and are subject to a residence condition that requires them to live at an address specified in that condition. The Home Office recognises that, where the Secretary of State is required to provide a person with accommodation to enable them to meet their bail conditions, a specified address cannot always be known at the time of the bail grant. Accordingly, it has been a long-standing policy position that bail can be granted with a residence condition to an address that is known at the time of the grant of immigration bail, or an address that is yet to be specified. In 2024, this was also set out explicitly in the relevant guidance. The policy is clear, and operational teams are already operating the legislation in this way, to ensure that someone can apply to the Home Office for bail accommodation without having been granted bail to a specific address. Therefore, the amendment—with its good intention—would make no material difference to the current operation of the legislation and is not necessary. I am happy to hear further from the noble Lord, but I invite him not to move his amendment.
On the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Amendment 146 would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against persons who breach the conditions attached to their leave in the UK. Such breaches of conditions may already be addressed by cancelling that leave and removing the person from the UK without the need to seek a deportation order. Mandating deportation in such cases is not therefore necessary. It will provide no guarantee that a person’s removal from the UK could be enforced if they were to make a human rights or protection claim against their removal.
Finally, Amendment 147 would replace existing criminal sanctions for offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 with a penalty of deportation. Overstayers and illegal entrants are already liable to removal from the UK. Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, consideration will be given to their deportation. With respect to the noble Lord, the amendment risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not result in an increase in removals from the UK.
This has been a serious debate that has raised a number of points. But I hope, given what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press his objection to Clause 43. I will meet noble Lords to discuss their objections further to understand their concerns better. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments so that we can examine the clause together.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group for their contributions to this debate. This has been a group that clearly reflects several different views, and I welcome that we have been able to have a debate on these issues.
We on these Benches remain firm in our resolve that conditional leave to enter or remain should be just that—conditional on criteria that seek to safeguard our communities, our public services and our economy. These conditions do not undermine our capacity to be compassionate, our capacity to help those who are in need, or our record of supporting those who need our help. They ensure that we have a system that is controlled and protects our country, and over which the Government can exercise their dutiful authority. These are fundamental duties and we have sought to support the Government in meeting their own objectives. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider these amendments as a way of empowering him and his colleagues to take action that is needed to ensure that our conditions are not optional. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this need not, I hope, take anything like as long as the last group of amendments. Clause 46 relates to an appeal when a protection claim has been removed, and Clause 47 relates to protection and other human rights. The issue I am probing is the scope that these clauses give for the Government or Parliament to impose deadlines on the tribunal in determining appeals—in this case, a deadline of 24 weeks from the institution of the appeal. I am not arguing that appeals should not be dealt with as speedily as possible; instead, I would like to understand the scope for the tribunal to say, “Sorry, we can’t meet this timeframe”. In particular, how far can regard be had to other cases? Is it just for particular cases?
The wording is
“where the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so”.
Is that confined to a particular appeal or is it about the workload in general? I am very uneasy about a statutory deadline on how tribunals of the judiciary operate. I know that we will be given some opportunities to be briefed on and to discuss the new procedures that the Government have in mind, but we must deal with this legislation as it is in front of us now. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, at the heart of Amendment 157, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, is the fundamental principle that we must reduce the backlog, unblock the immigration system and ensure that people are not left waiting endlessly for a decision on their appeal. It is in no one’s interest that asylum seekers should be kept in hotels and HMOs for weeks on end while decisions are being made on their appeal. Delay does not serve anyone.
The present situation is intolerable. Recently reported statistics cited by the Law Society show that the waiting time for an appeal decision is, on average, nearly 50 weeks. There is almost a year of uncertainty, during which applicants remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation and support. It is in precisely this space that vexatious claims can be lodged, with the appeals process used not to seek justice but to delay removal and prolong the benefit of support. This is not acceptable, and it undermines public confidence in the integrity of the system.
Our amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State, first, to publish a clear date by which he expects appeals to be determined within a 24-week period, and then, within 12 months, to provide a report on how many cases have not met that standard; in other words, the Government would have to set out their ambition and then be held to account for whether or not they deliver it.
Amendments 203F and 203G, tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Alton, are fundamentally about transparency, requiring that all judgments of the Upper Tribunal in immigration and asylum matters are published promptly and made accessible to the public. Why does this matter? First, it is because transparency allows us to assess the quality of the initial decision-making process. A high rate of successful appeals is a clear signal that something is going wrong further upstream, either with the application of the law or with the evidential standards being applied. Without clear and timely publication of judgments, it is difficult to see where those problems lie.
These amendments are about shining a light on the system. If the Government have nothing to hide, there can be no objection to Parliament and the public being able to see how decisions are being made. Indeed, such transparency will strengthen confidence that our border security is being upheld in the way that Ministers assure us it is. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this principle in light of the points than I and other noble Lords have raised.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that we will have a full discussion on Amendments 203F and 203G at a later date. I will take that as an hors d’oeuvre from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. It is important that he trails those issues because they are linked. I value that he has done that today. However, I will focus on the amendments before the Committee, Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These seek to confirm that the resources of the tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure that appeals are heard fairly within the 24-week timeframe.
Clauses 46 and 47 already set out that the statutory timeframe should be adhered to unless it is not reasonably practical to do so. This enables the judiciary to take into account any relevant factors when exercising its discretion and responsibility over case management and the listing of appeals. We in the Home Office are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal has the resources it needs to meet the growing backlog. and we want to ensure that we deliver on that backlog as a matter of some urgency. The tribunal has been given additional funding to boost the number of days it will be sitting in 2025-26 to near maximum capacity, and we are also consulting on uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees to support that capacity.
The period of 24 weeks is carefully chosen, as it balances the importance of resolving cases quickly, while the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure access to justice for all. To provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness, the resources of the tribunal are taken into consideration, and these provisions will not apply immediately following Royal Assent. There will be a period of implementation and operationalisation, during which the Home Office, the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service will ensure the tribunals’ readiness in the coming months. I hope all that will give the noble Baroness some reassurance on those issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My noble friend Lady Brinton added her name to all these amendments. I was happy that she did so. I am also happy to have the opportunity —of course, not at her expense—of expressing my support for them this evening. Inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said, there is rather a lot of repetition in this over a period of years.
We touched on visual age assessments—I cannot remember on which day in Committee—and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as she always has done, expressed her clear views about visual assessment being inappropriate. She said she had talked—coming from her cultural and ethnic background; I align myself with her in this—to young males whose looks raised a question in her mind as to what age they were. However hard we try, our own backgrounds leave us with a bias, I suppose—an inbuilt bias, an expectation. We have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes.
I recall being in the education centre of this House, talking to young students who I think were at the top end of primary school. There was one young student who, if you went by facial hair, would have been regarded as twice as old as he actually was. I recall also being very impressed by his presentation; the students were discussing how they would campaign for a change in the law, although I suppose I should not go into that tonight.
My noble friend also has in this group Amendments 180 and 194, supported by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Amendment 180 deals with criminal proceedings, and my noble friend says that a mandatory referral age for age assessment in those proceedings follows from the basic argument regarding assessment for immigration purposes.
Amendment 194, as the noble Baroness has said, is about accommodation. Some people assume that everyone in asylum accommodation is a criminal and a danger to local residents. It is good that we have the opportunity to recognise that a child in adult accommodation, in adult detention, is a vulnerable child, and I just use the amendment to make that point.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
This is an important set of amendments, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords supporting them that we on these Benches have some disagreements with them.
Amendment 162 proposes that, where there is any doubt as to age, we should simply presume that the individual is a child. I cannot think of a more reckless approach. We all know that children are entitled to greater rights and protections under our law, but those protections exist precisely because children are vulnerable. If we hand them out indiscriminately to anyone who claims to be under 18, we risk creating grave safeguarding failures. There are well-documented cases where individuals who arrived illegally have lied about their age, and as a result adult men were placed in classrooms with teenage girls or in accommodation with vulnerable children. This amendment, whatever its good intentions, would compromise safety, weaken enforcement and put children at risk, and we cannot allow that to happen. Furthermore, Amendment 163 seems to me to be completely impractical in operational terms.
The fundamental point is this: age is one of the characteristics that we need to determine as soon as someone arrives in the UK illegally. This is innately tied to the sort of support they receive, who they are housed with, what services they can access and how they will interact with other migrants and those already in the United Kingdom.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsWednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions(1) The duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1) does not require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.(2) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.(3) The power in subsection (2) may be exercised only—(a) where the person is to be removed for the purposes of reunion with the person’s parent;(b) where the person is to be removed to a country listed in section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (safe States for the purposes of section 80A of that Act) which is—(i) a country of which the person is a national, or(ii) a country in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity;(c) where the person has not made a protection claim or a human rights claim and the person is to be removed to—(i) a country of which the person is a national,(ii) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity, or(iii) a country or territory in which the person embarked for the United Kingdom;(d) in such other circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(d) may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State.(5) For the purposes of this section a person (“C”) is an “unaccompanied child” if—(a) C meets the four conditions in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal),(b) C is under the age of 18, and(c) at the relevant time no individual (whether or not a parent of C) who was aged 18 or over had care of C.(6) In subsection (5) “the relevant time” means the time of C’s entry or arrival in the United Kingdom by virtue of which the duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1) would apply in relation to C apart from this section.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for other exceptions from the duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1). (8) Regulations under subsection (7) may make provision—(a) for this Act or any other enactment to have effect with modifications, in relation to a person to whom an exception applies, in consequence of the application of the exception to that person;(b) for an exception, or for any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a), to be treated as having had effect from a time before the coming into force of the regulations.(9) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) may, in particular, disapply any provision of this Act or any other enactment in relation to a person to whom an exception applies.(10) In subsections (8) and (9) “enactment” includes—(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru;(d) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) must be laid before Parliament after being made.(12) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (11) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(13) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(14) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (12) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(15) In this section—“human rights claim” has the meaning given by section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;“national” includes citizen;“protection claim” has the meaning given by section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 107, 108 and 111 standing in my name. They are all linked to the amendments in the previous group and once again are aimed at understanding exactly why the Government are repealing each of these clauses.
First and foremost, Amendment 106 rightly acknowledges the unique vulnerability of unaccompanied children. Unlike adults, these children do not have the benefit of parental guidance, support or protection, which fundamentally changes the context in which any immigration or removal decision should be made. The exemption from removal under proposed new subsection (1) reflects the humane principle that children, especially those who arrive without guardians, require special consideration. At the same time, the amendment incorporates a balanced discretion for the Secretary of State to make exceptions, but, crucially, only in narrowly defined and principled circumstances. This discretion is limited to cases of family reunion or removal to a safe state to which the child has a clear connection, such as nationality or passport holding. This would ensure that the state maintains the ability to act in the best interests of the child and public policy without resorting to indiscriminate removals.
Amendment 107 would bring much-needed clarity and accountability to the handling of European Court of Human Rights interim measures, in relation to the duty to remove under Amendment 105. Interim measures, often issued to prevent irreparable harm while a full hearing is pending, are a critical tool in safeguarding human rights. However, this amendment rightly recognises that these measures must be balanced with national sovereignty and the Government’s responsibility to manage immigration effectively. First, the amendment would establish that the decision to give effect to a European Court of Human Rights interim measure is the discretionary personal responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. This personal involvement emphasises the gravity of the decision, ensuring that it is not delegated lightly or handled bureaucratically. Such a provision would enhance political accountability, requiring Ministers to engage directly with complex legal and humanitarian issues rather than allowing automatic suspension of removal without sovereign consideration.
Furthermore, by restricting the obligation of immigration officials, courts and tribunals to give effect to the interim measure where a Minister has chosen not to recognise it, the amendment would prevent conflicting mandates within the system. This avoids a confusing legal limbo where different authorities might take contradictory positions regarding removal actions that undermine coherence and efficiency in immigration enforcement. This provision strikes a pragmatic balance between respecting international human rights obligations and preserving the Government’s capacity to maintain effective border control. It avoids rigid, automatic enforcement of interim measures that could paralyse immigration functions while still providing a structured framework to engage with the European court’s decisions.
Amendment 108 is a crucial step towards ensuring the duty in Amendment 105 is not needlessly hobbled, and that anyone who enters illegally is removed no matter who they are. It would tackle head-on abuse of asylum and human rights claims, a process that can delay removals and undermine the integrity of the immigration system. The amendment would make it clear that, for individuals meeting the statutory conditions for removal, any protection claim, human rights claim, trafficking or slavery victim claim or application for judicial review cannot be used to delay or frustrate the removal process.
This is vital. Currently, the system is frequently exploited through repeated and sometimes frivolous claims, causing prolonged uncertainty, administrative backlog and resource drain on the Home Office and courts. Declaring claims inadmissible at the outset when conditions for removal are met would significantly reduce abuse. It sends a strong message that these legal routes are not loopholes for indefinite delay. This also enables faster removal decisions, preserving our ability to control our borders effectively.
We have also included a judicial ouster clause in this amendment to prevent courts from setting aside inadmissibility declarations, promoting legal certainty and finality in removal proceedings. This avoids protracted litigation and vexatious legal challenges, which often tie up judicial resources without improving outcomes for genuine claimants.
Finally, Amendment 111 addresses the question of what support, if any, is available to individuals whose asylum or related claims are declared inadmissible under these amendments. By amending the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and related legislation, the proposed clause ensures that the withdrawal or withholding of support aligns consistently with the inadmissibility framework. This is essential for legal clarity and operational coherence. Without these amendments, there would be a disconnect between the removal of rights to remain and the removal of support, potentially creating gaps or confusion in how support is administered. The amendment ensures that, when a person’s claim is declared inadmissible under the new rules, the support framework adjusts accordingly, reflecting that the individual is no longer entitled to certain forms of state assistance. It also protects the integrity of the asylum support system by preventing those whose claims do not meet the admissibility criteria from accessing support intended for genuine asylum seekers. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know that the Government vigorously opposed the Rwanda Bill, and indeed the Prime Minister described it as a gimmick, or words to that effect. I understand that that is the Government’s position, and I do not expect them to change their mind. But the point worth making is that, although the Rwanda scheme as a whole may not have found favour with the Government, it does not follow that some of the provisions in that Act are not appropriate to whatever policy the Government ultimately may think is appropriate. I know that this is something of a moving picture, as the Minister acknowledged.
I will not repeat what I said in the wrong group in relation to Amendment 107, but I place particular emphasis on that amendment because that issue was a pretty obvious excess of jurisdiction on the part of the European Court of Human Rights. This Government, whatever the final form their policy takes in statutory terms, may find that they have an interim ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that offends natural justice. The fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, quite rightly said—it needs a Minister before a decision is taken to reject it is an important safeguard. It is not a question of casting it aside and ignoring it; it is considered at an appropriate level, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the interim order that the court made under Rule 39. It is important that that provision should be inserted, whatever form the policy takes.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained fully why the Government are removing these sections of the Illegal Migration Act and why they oppose these amendments. The first amendment sought to protect unaccompanied children from automatic removal, while allowing for carefully defined exceptions. The second amendment aimed to clarify ministerial discretion when it comes to interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights—a safeguard that balances human rights considerations with the practicalities of border control. The third amendment addressed the worrying practice of disregarding outright certain protections, human-rights trafficking claims and judicial review applications—something that risks undermining access to justice. The fourth amendment ensured the coherence of asylum support provisions in cases where claims are declared inadmissible, preventing gaps and confusion around entitlement to state assistance. I make it clear that these concerns remain very much alive with us and may well be brought forward again in the future. But for now I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Decisions relating to a person’s age(1) This section applies if a relevant authority decides the age of a person (“P”) who meets the four conditions in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal) (duty to make arrangements for removal), whether that decision is for the purposes of this Act or otherwise.(2) If the decision is made on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, P may not bring an appeal against the decision under section 54(2) of that Act.(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if P makes an application for judicial review of—(a) the decision mentioned in subsection (1), or(b) any decision to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom under this Act which is taken on the basis of that decision.(4) The application does not prevent the exercise of any duty or power under this Act to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom. (5) The court or tribunal must determine the application on the basis that the person’s age is a matter of fact to be determined by the relevant authority; and accordingly the court or tribunal—(a) may grant relief only on the basis that the decision was wrong in law, and(b) may not grant relief on the basis that the court or tribunal considers the decision mentioned in subsection (1) was wrong as a matter of fact.(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) an immigration officer,(c) a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022,(d) a local authority within the meaning of that Part, subject to subsection (7), or(e) a public authority within the meaning of that Part which is specified in regulations under section 50(1)(b) of that Act (referral of age-disputed person for age assessment).(7) This section applies in relation to a decision of a local authority which is a decision within subsection (1) only if it is for the purposes, or also for the purposes, of the local authority deciding whether or how to exercise any of its functions under relevant children’s legislation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.(8) For the purposes of this section, the cases in which a relevant authority decides the age of a person on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 include where a relevant authority is treated by virtue of regulations under section (Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods) of this Act as having decided that a person is over the age of 18.(9) This section applies only in relation to a decision which is made after this section comes into force.(10) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.(11) In section 54(6) (appeals relating to age assessments)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and(c) section (Decisions relating to a person’s age) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (decisions relating to a person’s age).”(12) In section 56(1) (new information following age assessment or appeal), for paragraph (b) (and the “and” at the end of that paragraph) substitute—“(b) an appeal under section 54(2)—(i) could no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time),(ii) has been finally determined, or(iii) may not be brought as a result of section (Decisions relating to a person’s age)(2) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (age assessments relating to removal under that Act), and”.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we all agree that our system must be fair, and that there must be opportunities for proper dialogue and challenge when decisions are made about an individual’s age. That is right, and it is in keeping with our values. However, it is equally clear, and can be argued, that the balance has shifted too far in one direction. We have seen repeated last-minute legal challenges which have little merit but which succeed in frustrating or delaying removals. These are not genuine safeguards; they are tactical devices often deployed to prolong a person’s stay and undermine the integrity of our borders.
Amendment 114 seeks to restore the balance which we identified in government by reintroducing Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. It would ensure that factual decisions on age made by the appropriate authority could not be endlessly relitigated as a matter of opinion before the courts. Legal errors could still, rightly, be challenged, but the endless recycling of disputes over fact would no longer come at the cost of our border security. The Government would retain the power they currently have to remove those who they determine should not remain in the United Kingdom.
If we are to reduce the numbers and regain control of this issue, the Government must have the flexibility to act decisively once the facts have been properly determined. That is the balance we strike here: a system that is fair but firm; that is open to genuine challenge but closed to vexatious delay.
Furthermore, Amendment 115 is about ensuring that we have the tools to make accurate, authoritative determinations on the age of those who arrive here illegally. This information is not a minor detail; it shapes the protections a person is entitled to, the facilities in which they may be placed and the level of safeguarding that must be applied. To make decisions that are safe, appropriate and in the best interests of both the individual and the wider community, we must have reliable information.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for our agreement on the answering of the question and I retain my position. I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords. That was an informative if not intriguing debate, and I shall be brief in closing our discussion on this group. I return to the central principle that has underpinned all my remarks: our immigration system must be balanced. It must allow for proper dialogue, proper challenge and proper safeguards, but it must also be able to function effectively. The system serves a vital purpose: it protects our borders, it maintains public confidence in our Government’s ability to protect us and it upholds the rule of law. If we allow it to become paralysed by delays, backlogs and spurious challenges, it fails not only in its legal duties but in its duty to the British people.
We on this side of the House are rightly concerned that removing these clauses will jeopardise that balance and that, without them, the Government’s ability to take timely authoritative decisions and to act on them will be weakened—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not want to break the noble Lord’s chain of thought, but information has just been supplied to me that we now have on the government website the number of age disputes raised, the number of age disputes resolved, the number of adults found to be children, et cetera. That information is available now on GOV.UK, and I will supply further details to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government should either reintroduce these provisions or make it clear to this House here and now how they intend to prevent the harm that their removal will cause. Without such assurances, we cannot be confident that our borders will be secure, that our processes will be respected or that the British public can have faith in the system that serves it. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree to a degree with the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We may not agree on everything, but we are, in this small way, united. I shall speak briefly on the other amendments in this group, before turning to those in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron.
On Amendment 119, it is right that asylum casework should be completed as quickly as possible. Delays are costly to the taxpayer and to public confidence in the asylum system. When cases drag on for extended periods, it not only increases the financial burden but undermines the perception that our system is effective, fair and controlled.
However, while I support the principle behind the amendment, I have concerns about the rigidity of imposing a legal service standard. What happens when the limit is breached? Would this create a new legal avenue for challenge, further delaying removals and adding yet more strain to the system? The real solution lies not only in faster processing but in reducing the pressures in the first place. While I support the intention behind the proposal, I believe that our priority must remain on addressing the root causes of the pressure and not just on setting ambitious targets that may ultimately prove counterproductive.
We also have some sympathy for Amendment 195. It concerns a matter that this side has raised in relation to other Bills currently going through the House, such as the fraud, error and recovery Bill. When decisions are being taken that greatly affect the life of another person, we need to have some guarantee of human involvement. I therefore welcome this as an opportunity for the Minister to set out how AI will be used in this process.
I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend. Amendment 201 would compel the Government to produce a report into the cost of providing asylum support. The British people engage with the principle of asylum in good will; they want to see those who are genuinely in need of protection given the support they require. That is a national characteristic of which I am proud. However, part of maintaining that good will is being open and honest about the costs involved. We have all seen what happens when there are information gaps: mistrust grows, narratives fill the space and confidence in the system is undermined; the Government then lose control, and it does not matter what they have done or delivered as it all becomes noise in a vacuum. Our amendment therefore seeks to address that by ensuring that the Government provide a comprehensive report on the cost of providing asylum support. Transparency should not be something that the Government resist; it is a hallmark of good governance.
Finally, Amendment 202 would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of proposals for the establishment of third-country removal centres. We, on this side of the Committee, have been clear that we are facing a massive, escalating and serious problem with illegal entry into the United Kingdom. If Ministers are serious about ending the crisis in the channel, they must be willing to consider the full range of options, and this review will be a vital step towards that.
Taken together, our two amendments are about realism, transparency and ambition: realism in recognising that our current approach is not working; transparency in being honest with the British people about the costs and consequences of our policies; and ambition in being prepared to consider tougher, more effective measures that match the scale of the challenge we face. The public’s patience is wearing thin and their confidence in the system will not be restored by half-measures. These proposals would give the Government the tools, evidence and mandate to act decisively.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Front Benches for their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled an amendment to introduce a new service standard. I want to thank them for the amendment, as it helpful to look at that. We absolutely agree that there needs to be a properly functioning, effective immigration system. Our asylum processes should be not just efficient but robust. We are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. We want to ensure that protection is granted as soon as possible so that people can start to integrate and rebuild their lives, including by obtaining employment when they have the right to do so. As such, I want to provide reassurance of the important steps we are already taking to achieve this aim.
As I have said on a number of occasions, during the passage of the Bill as well as in Questions and Statements, we have inherited a very large backlog, which we are trying to clear at pace. We are delivering the removals of people with no right to be in the UK, and we want to ensure that we restore the system very quickly. By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals. We have taken steps to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system. We have put in resources to ensure that we can do that at pace. That is why we are also looking at the efficiency of appeals and decisions, which we see to be of paramount importance.
The Bill proposes setting up a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks for the First-tier Tribunal to dispose of supported asylum appeals and appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders. The measures aim to speed up the appeal decisions, to ensure that we increase tribunal capacity and have a timely consideration of appeals. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agree with me that the work that we are conducting at pace is appropriate and is having a real impact now on the size of the backlog. Although we cannot discuss the three-month time scale proposed in the amendment, I can reassure them that it is certainly on our agenda.
Amendment 195 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looks particularly at generative AI tools to support caseworkers. I want to emphasise that no immigration decision is made solely by automatic decision-making, for there is still always a human eye on the decision-making. It is important that case summarisation and policy search tools, both of which are designed to help decision-makers, mean that we have improvements and efficiency in that process, which is also helping to reduce the backlog, which we want.
We have had an evaluation of the tools to date. We published that on GOV.UK in May. Therefore, we can demonstrate that the new technologies, such as AI, can potentially save around an hour per case, which is allowing decision-makers to access information more easily and to streamline the asylum process without, I hope, compromising the quality of the decisions.
Ethics and data protection are at the forefront of the considerations—the noble Baroness has mentioned that. The Home Office is taking significant steps to ensure that, where we trial and adopt AI in decision-making, we do so responsibly and in a way that maintains public confidence and that any tools are being trialled and are used to assist Home Office staff. With those assurances, I hope that she will not press her amendment.
The noble Baroness also mentioned other issues, which I will return to in a moment.
Amendment 201 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, addresses ensuring transparency in the asylum system. I hope he will understand that we think the amendment is unnecessary, not because it is not right that he presses us on this, but because, as we have discussed throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, the cost of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers has grown significantly. I have put those proposals before the House as a whole. This is a due in large part to the strain we have had on the asylum system in recent years, including the number of unprocessed claims and a record number of arrivals via small boats. We are taking steps to reduce the cost and ensure public funds are managed responsibly.
I understand the intention behind this amendment; it aims to enhance transparency and provide Parliament with a clear picture of how asylum support is being delivered. But I note that the information that the noble Lord is requesting is published each year in the Home Office’s annual accounts. The figures are publicly available and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and we remain committed they are as clear and comprehensive as possible.
The amendment seeks a breakdown of the proportion of asylum seekers who have had their claims denied but are still receiving support. It may be helpful to note that failed asylum seekers can, under certain conditions, remain eligible for support, for example if they are taking steps to leave the UK or face temporary barriers. They are all important issues. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but that information is already available.
I will touch on this issue briefly, because I have the information on my phone, which will lose its signal and sign out if I do not look at it immediately. On the issue of rewards and bonuses for staff that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, there is a consistent delivery of high-quality work and professional behaviour. We want to ensure that asylum decisions are subject to stringent quality checks, with individual performance targets agreed with managers and reviewed regularly to ensure that the high standards expected are consistently met. I will give her more information about the bonus scheme—as far as I can—after the discussions today.
I should also say, in passing, that all claimants will receive a written transcript of any interview that has taken place, and they can also have an audio recording of that. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness about the issues she has put before me.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. We on this side of the House oppose Amendment 131 on the grounds that it undermines a key provision of the borders Bill and creates a two-tier system where some people are rightly subject to stricter conditions but others are not. The amendment would, in effect, disapply these provisions from individuals who ought to be subject to them. If these provisions are, as noble Lords rightly recognise, necessary to strengthen our ability to act, then surely they should apply equally to all relevant cases from the moment the Act comes into force.
We on this side also oppose Amendment 132, which would result in the release of people from detention possibly before any determination had been made on them and before we could be assured that it was safe and in the national interest to do so. This would result in the release of people when their identities remained unclear and we did not know why they were here or what threat they might pose to the country. We know of cases where people who arrived here illegally went on to plan and very nearly execute major terrorist attacks sponsored by hostile foreign states, as happened in May last year. It would be deeply irresponsible to allow such individuals to walk free while essential checks were still ongoing.
Amendment 140 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire, who I note is not present in his place, would require the Secretary of State to make a biannual report on the number of foreign criminals detained awaiting deportation under any authority broken down by nationality, and on the number of illegal entrants detained for any purpose under any authority broken down by nationality. This amendment would provide much-needed clarity on who was being detained and goes to the heart of a point that we on these Benches have raised consistently.
The British people have a right to know who is being detained and where they are from. If we are to foster good will towards those who genuinely need our help, this must be done in a framework of trust and openness between the Government and the public. For these reasons, while we welcome Amendment 140 for the clarity and transparency it brings, we cannot support the majority of the amendments in this group. They would weaken key provisions, create loopholes and make it harder for us to maintain the strength and integrity of our immigration and asylum system.
The challenge we face is significant and demands a robust response. No one will benefit in the long term if we fail to take control now. The British people will lose patience, trust will erode and good will towards migrants who genuinely need our help will diminish. Once that good will is lost, it cannot easily be recovered. We must bring the public with us, not alienate them, and that requires a system that is both strong and fair. These amendments do not achieve that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I find myself not in agreement, I am afraid, with the noble Lord, Lord German, so it is an interesting end to a long day of debate.
Immigration detention is an issue that I know noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of Clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. It is the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. Without the retrospective effect of this clause, individuals could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings.
Amendment 131 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove that retrospective effect. I do not believe that is a productive way forward because, as I mentioned, Clause 41 clarifies these powers. The Home Office already detains individuals at the first stage of deportation. Clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.
On Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, with support from other noble Lords, it is important to make clear the Government’s position that a statutory time limit on detention will not, in our view, be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK. The Government have been clear that we are committed to increasing removals of people who have no right to be here. That is what the public expect and, in that vein, I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
In the year ending March 2025, there were 8,600 enforced removals—a 22% increase on the previous year—and that would not be possible with a time limit on detention because it would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers. It is crucial that we have an immigration system that encourages compliance. Under a 28-day time limit, people who have no legal right to be in the UK—including, as the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, mentioned, some who potentially have committed serious crimes—would be automatically released after 28 days, regardless of whether they have actively obstructed removal efforts or pose a clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public, and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders, who may have committed serious criminal offences, would benefit from this amendment equally to anybody else.
Additionally, such a time limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate removal processes until they reach that 28-day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made that would potentially push people over the 28-day limit, and this would undermine effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk.
Amendment 133 requires that, after 96 hours of detention, a person may continue to be detained only if they have been refused bail by the First-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a scheduled bail hearing. This would again, in my view, place significant additional burdens on an already-stretched tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.
There are a number of safeguards in the detention process—I hope this will reassure the noble Lord—including access to the courts by judicial review; bail applications, which can be made at any point; and automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods. With these mechanisms in place, the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary.
I recognise and understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we have powers to detain people only for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose, either to examine a person on their arrival, to remove or to deport. We have a number of safeguards in place, and I assure noble Lords that, where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe, these safeguards ensure that people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I put that for him to consider today in order to withdraw the amendment, which we can return to later.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has tabled Amendment 140. Sadly, he has not managed to be here this evening, but when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day tomorrow morning, he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants. We also produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Davies of Gower ExcerptsWednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the Question that Clauses 38 and 39 stand part of the Bill. It is a curious feature of this Bill that, on the one hand, it purports to take tougher action on illegal migration, yet at the same time it repeals the very Act of Parliament which would tackle that illegal migration in the most robust and effective way.
The Illegal Migration Act was introduced in the other place on 7 March 2023, in response to the crisis along the shorelines of the south-east and in the channel. It was aimed at stopping the boats, defending our borders and preventing those who enter the United Kingdom illegally from being able to remain. As my right honourable friend Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary at the time, said when moving the Second Reading in the other place:
“The British public know that border security is national security, and that illegal migration makes us all less safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 573.]
At the time, the Labour Party did not agree with that sentiment as it consistently opposed all efforts to stop the boats under the previous Government. It was welcome that the current Government began to acknowledge the necessity of stopping the boats, but it is clear from this clause that they have not yet fully appreciated what must be done. If they had, then they would not be pursuing this course of action.
Central to all of this is that this is what the British people want. They want to stop illegal migration, people making the journey across the channel in small boats and people dying in the channel. The way we do that is by having a credible deterrent to end the demand. That deterrent needs to contain both the ability to remove everyone that enters the United Kingdom illegally and a removals policy involving a safe third country.
The Government have spent much time trying to tear down the sensible policies of the previous Government, both the safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the same time, they have announced that they want to follow the Italian approach and pursue third-country removal centres—or, as the Prime Minister calls them, return hubs. In a visit to Albania in May, the Prime Minister said:
“What now we want to do and are having discussions of, talks of, is return hubs, which is where someone has been through the system in the UK, they need to be returned and we have to make sure they’re returned effectively, and we’ll do that, if we can, through return hubs”.
However, we know that Albania does not want to work with this Government in establishing return hubs. The Government have also spent much of the last few months talking up the one-in, one-out returns deal with France, but, as we all know, this returns deal is not much more than smoke and mirrors. It is very clear that EU countries do not want to take third country returns. It is also clear that the only country willing to take third country returns is in fact Rwanda. That is why we pursued the Rwanda policy and why we passed the Illegal Migration Act.
The effect of repealing the Illegal Migration Act and scrapping the Rwanda deterrent is that people who arrive in Calais know that all they have to do is make their way into British territorial waters and they will most likely be able to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if they are not successful in their asylum claim, they may very well be able to remain in the UK because we cannot return them for one reason or another.
The measures in the Illegal Migration Act placed a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove illegal entrants, thereby sending a strong and unambiguous message to those who would seek to flout our laws and abuse our immigration system. This Act, taken in tandem with the Rwanda scheme, if allowed fully to operate, could have acted as a suitable deterrent. By repealing this Act almost in its entirety, the Government now lack the ability swiftly to remove illegal migrants and will not be able to deter further crossings. This is highly disappointing. It betrays the simple fact that this Government are not truly serious about stopping illegal migration and defending our borders. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing the clause stand part notice. At the outset, I place on record for the House that 35,052 people were returned from 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025, the first year of this Government. Of those returns, 9,115 were enforced returns of people with no legal right to remain in the UK, a 24% increase over the period of the previous year.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness the definitive figure on small boat arrival asylum claims, but roughly 61% to 65% of asylum claims are accepted, and roughly 35% are not. I can reflect on the exact figures, but those are the rough figures. From the Government’s perspective, we then have to speed up the asylum claims so we can make those assessments much more speedily. Part of the reason for the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is that those asylum applications were not speedily assessed. Therefore, people have been left in limbo in asylum hotels.
Those numbers have grown exponentially during the period 2015 to 2024. There was a dip just before the election, which I acknowledge, but further energy needs to be put into that to close the hotels—which we intend to do—and to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum. There are separate issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, such as ECHR obligations, refugee convention obligations, et cetera. But the Government simply believe that we need to speed up those asylum claims, and the measures in the Bill and externally from executive action and the immigration White Paper, along with future proposals, are designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his clause stand part notice.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. At this point, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I pay tribute to him for the sterling work he did as a Home Office Minister in steering the Illegal Migration Act through this House, and I thank him for his continued, erudite defence of this Act.
The Government have some serious explaining to do to justify how they think they will have a credible system to protect our borders and prevent illegal migration. If they cannot act swiftly and decisively to remove those who illegally enter this country and process their claims offshore, there is no deterrent. Without a deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the boats, and if the Government cannot stop the boats, then I believe this Bill will fail.
I assure the House that we will be returning to this matter in due course, but for now, I will not oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the stand part notice.
Borders and Asylum
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the wave of protests over the summer in opposition to the continuing use of hotels to house asylum seekers has evidently forced the Government’s hand. They have now been in office for over a year and, unfortunately, the situation at the border has deteriorated. We have seen some 29,300 people cross the channel in small boats to gain unlawful entry into the UK since Labour took office—the highest ever figure.
Regrettably, the Home Secretary did not offer an explanation yesterday as to why she thinks these figures have increased. Might I suggest to the Minister that the reason illegal crossings have reached a historic high is because the Government scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it was even able to begin repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act and have failed to effectively implement policies to deter those who would attempt the crossing?
One major policy the Government have pursued, the returns deal with France, has yet to bear any results. The Home Secretary has stated that the Government are moving faster than the Conservatives were with Rwanda, obviously forgetting that the reason the Rwanda policy was delayed was because the Labour Party voted against it over 130 times. Although I appreciate that it is early days and this is just a pilot, can the Minister confirm when the Home Office will be sending the first people back to France? Is there yet a timeframe in place?
In the Statement, the Home Secretary stated that the Government have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here. Unfortunately, that statistic is highly misleading. The Home Office data for the year ending June 2025 shows that enforcement returns—people who are subject to removal or deportation by the Home Office—for the previous year stood at 9,072 people. The number of voluntary returns—those people who were liable to be removed but chose to leave the UK before being deported—was 26,761. It is the combination of these two figures that make up the 35,000 returns claim. Clearly, the vast majority of returns are therefore voluntary returns, not enforced deportation action by the Home Office. Is it not highly misleading for the Government to claim that they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left of their own accord and they have only removed 9,072 people themselves? The figure is being used to mask the reality of failure to get a grip on the crisis at the border, smash the gangs and close down all remaining asylum hotels.
The Home Secretary—I am sure the Minister will not fail to repeat this—made the point that the hotels were opened under the last Government, and that this Government have been taking action to close them. Unfortunately, what she omitted from her Statement was that the previous Government were taking action to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels. From the peak of 56,042 in September 2023, we reduced that number to 29,585 in June 2024, but since this Government have been in office, that number has only increased. It jumped to 38,079 in December of last year and, as of 30 June, stands at 32,059. That is a 7.7% increase from when the Conservatives left government.
Furthermore, in the run-up to the election, the Conservative Government closed down 200 of these hotels. Had that rate of closure continued, there would be no hotels housing asylum seekers today. What is evident is that this Government have not continued with that pace of closure; nor are they taking enough action to deter and remove those who enter this country illegally.
The Home Secretary repeated the claim several times during her Statement in the other place that the Opposition are “resisting” and “opposing” the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in this House. She even insinuated that we are attempting to slow the passage of the Bill. I must say to the Minister that I take issue with that characterisation. We have had three days in Committee on the Bill so far and are due to finish Committee stage next Monday—one day earlier than initially scheduled.
On a number of aspects, including the new immigration offences, we have supported the Government trying to toughen up the system. Indeed, I welcome the announcement in this Statement that the Government will be pausing refugee family reunion to tackle the large increase in the number of people applying to bring family members to the UK after a very short period. What we do resist, however, is the Government’s opposition to many of our proposals—or perhaps I should say “previous opposition”, since much of what the Home Secretary proposed yesterday has already been raised in this Chamber by those of us on these Benches.
This morning, the Home Secretary mentioned the number of students who arrive in the UK on a student visa and then go on to claim asylum, stating that she wants to “clamp down” on this “back-door” route. I entirely agree, which is why I tabled Amendment 193 to the border security Bill, which would prevent any person making an asylum claim more than one year after they have entered the UK. This would prevent precisely that scenario occurring. It has yet to be debated, but I am sure that the Minister will support it when we come to debate it.
One of the main announcements in the Statement is the establishment of a new body to deal with asylum and immigration appeals. If this is established quickly and efficiently, it may be able to help reduce the processing of appeals. However, several questions remain. Will this body deal only with administrative appeals made to the Home Office, or will it also deal with judicial appeals, which are currently made to the asylum and immigration chamber? Secondly, will the Government now be supporting our further Amendment 138 to the border security Bill, which would prevent a person appealing against a deportation order made under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act?
Finally, can the Minister confirm how these changes will be made, and when? Will the Government be bringing amendments to the border security Bill on Report in this House to implement these new policies?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the Government that the Conservatives “trashed” our asylum system, leaving the backlog spiralling out of control. We also agree that there is no silver bullet to deal with that failure. However, the Government have so far failed to get a grip on the problem as a whole. There may be a glimmer of hope that a comprehensive policy will emerge from the content of this Statement, so we will scrutinise carefully any plan that flows from it. But the real solutions lie in speeding up processing, so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned, providing safe routes to claim asylum, and ensuring that those with valid claims can get jobs, integrate and contribute to the community.
However, the closure of the family reunion route, albeit temporarily, is a sign that the Government are responding to current events rather than laying out what the complete reform would look like. We are deeply concerned by proposals to tighten family reunion rules and by what we are told will be the reduction of the move-on period from 56 days back to 28, much to the dismay of local authorities throughout our land. The Home Office itself acknowledges that a lack of safe alternative routes contributes to small boat crossings, so cutting these routes risks making that crisis worse. Refugees are not at an equal starting point. They have been forced to leave their homes and families, often in grave danger, and family reunion is crucial for their settlement and integration. What assessment has been made of the risk that tighter family reunion rules will push more families into the hands of people-smuggling gangs?
Regarding the new independent body and fast-track appeals, how will it be resourced to meet the 24-week target, and will there be a recruitment drive for asylum caseworkers to ease the backlog? Given the similarities of these roles to those of JPs, what timescale have the Government got in mind for, first, identifying suitable candidates and, secondly, training them in the legislative framework to undertake such duties? Furthermore, can the Minister guarantee that local authorities will be properly funded by government to support asylum accommodation, rather than having it imposed without consultation? We need a humane and efficient system, not one that continues to fail vulnerable people.
The UK-France returns deal, as we apparently know now, will see its first exchange of people at the end of this month. Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale for expanding what looks like very small numbers at the beginning?
Finally, what safeguards will ensure that the fast-track appeals process proposed does not compromise fairness or lead to more judicial reviews later? Refugees are entitled to be supported as well. It will be interesting to note what the Government propose to be the manner in which that system will actually proceed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their initial questions.
I will start, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He makes the allegation that the Government are responding to the protests that have taken place around the country in August of this year, which were relatively small in number. I reassure him that the Government have a very strong plan to remove the mess in which his Government left the asylum system, the hotel backlog and the small boats crisis. The actions that we are taking are part of a long-term wider plan, which includes the immigration Bill that we will debate further tomorrow, to ensure that we resolve this issue in a way that meets our international obligations and, at the same time, deals with the issues that we all have a common interest in removing. I remind the noble Lord that this August saw the lowest number of boats for that month for four years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord heckles from a sedentary position. We have been in office for 13 months now, and we have taken action—which relates, as I will come to, to what the noble Lord, Lord German, said—to establish a border command under the immigration Bill, to put in new powers to tackle small boats, which will be taking place shortly, and to scrap the Rwanda scheme that his Government put in place, which wasted £700 million of taxpayers money and removed, from memory, two people, both of whom went voluntarily. We are now using that resource to up the amount of money we are investing in speeding up asylum claims. In speeding up asylum claims, we are doing what we should be doing: assessing people and determining who has asylum and who does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned some figures in his contribution. Some 35,000 people with no right to abode in the UK have been removed in the past 12 months. That is up on his Government’s performance—a 28% increase in failed asylum seekers being removed. We have had a 14% increase in the removal of foreign national offenders, and an increase of 50% in the number of illicit work raids that we are undertaking to make sure that we maintain standards in employment.
I am afraid the noble Lord cannot get away from the fact that in 2015 there were very few hotels in operation, and we reached a massive peak under his Government. We are trying now to reduce that peak by closing hotels, and we are doing so by speeding up the asylum claims that he and his Government allowed to remain. So, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to take lessons from him on how to manage asylum, immigration or small boats when the problems that we have inherited are ones that his Government and his Home Office oversaw as a whole.
However, the noble Lord asked some reasonable questions, and I will try to establish some information for him. He asked about the new commission that we are establishing. We will set out further details on it in due course and ensure that we clarify and put into the public domain the roles the commission will have. We will ensure that the commission is paid for with existing departmental budgets, so there is no extra cost to the taxpayer for that. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, we will ensure that people have time to have rigorous training in decision-making and expertise to make decisions on appeal cases. I say again to all noble Lords that we are doing that to speed up the asylum appeal process that led to the highest asylum backlog in the history of asylum backlogs, under the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We are trying to speed up those claims because, ultimately, we need to determine someone’s right to abode in the UK under asylum, and if they do not have a right then we need to remove them. The previous Government did neither of those things to any effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the French scheme. Noble Lords will know that under the previous Government no attempts at all were made to discuss with the French the issue on the beaches of France in relation to small boats. The noble Lord again shakes his head. Perhaps at some future time, when he gets an opportunity, he could write to me and tell me what agreements were struck with the French regarding small boats and beaches. There were none, and because there were none, we have had to pick that up. Over the past 12 months we have negotiated with the French, and we have a returns agreement in place. That agreement is a pilot scheme. It has not yet removed people to a great extent, as the noble Lord knows, but it is a pilot that we are monitoring and evaluating. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, we intend to remove and exchange the first individuals under the scheme by the end of this month. The pilot will be evaluated and monitored, and I hope it will prove a benefit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, knows, because I tell him every time we have this discussion, we have had agreements with the French, the Belgians, the Dutch—the Calais Group—to take action. We have established a proper agreement with the Germans for the first time, to look at how we can stop boat manufacture and sale upstream, and we are putting extra effort into bringing people to justice so that we now have people before the courts for people-smuggling offences. There is going to be a difference between us because the noble Lord, Lord Davies, believes in the Rwanda scheme and I do not, but ultimately it is about delivery on these issues, and this Government, 13 months in, are beginning to deliver on them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his welcome for some of the measures in the Statement. I welcome his support over Border Security Command, the speeding up of asylum claims, the new powers in the Bill and the pledge to close hotels, because he is right that we need to ensure that we speed up the asylum backlog left by the previous Government. Those matters are in train at the moment, and we will continue to examine them.
As I have already mentioned, the French scheme will run in pilot form until the end of this month, but we hope to secure some action on that very quickly. I hope the issue regarding the new scheme of the appeals board, which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord German, and have already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is good.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord German, has concerns, which I recognise, about the family removal issue. I say to him that we intend to ensure that, at a date very shortly in the future, we bring forward a statutory instrument that will end the family reunion issue on a temporary basis while we review family reunion for a longer period. We are doing that for the straightforward reason that the number of family reunions has increased dramatically. I shall give him the figures now: over the seven years from 2015 to 2022, approximately 5,500 individuals were granted refugee family reunion each year. In 2024, 19,709 individuals arrived via this route—a 111% increase, which is just not sustainable. We need to review that, work on it and take action accordingly. At a date very shortly, we will lay a statutory instrument that will suspend the scheme and we will bring forward a revised scheme at a date in future when we are able to do so. The suspension is temporary while we undertake a full review and reform of current family rules.
In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord German, has asked a legitimate question: what do individuals who want to have family reunion do? They are quite able to apply as of now. Whenever the new scheme comes into effect, we will honour family reunion applications to the date when the scheme was suspended. We will then be able to examine any further family reunion routes through other means on the normal route for family reunion that will take place. We will bring forward in very short order a revised scheme that I hope will address some of the issues that, in my view, need to be tightened.
I say to all noble Lords that there is a common issue here and we should try to address it. That is what I am trying to do with the proposals before the House today.
Public Order Legislation
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the rights to free speech, to protest, and to make a view known about Palestine or Israel, or any other issue before the House, are central to the democratic rights that we all have as citizens. This House, with the other House, made a decision to proscribe Palestine Action. That does not mean that people cannot protest about the issue of Palestine or support or condemn Israel—it does not mean any of that. It means that Palestine Action has been deemed, on advice to Ministers, an organisation that goes beyond issues of protest and of criminal damage to organise activities which are potentially in the sphere of terrorist activity. I say to the noble Baroness: protest about Palestine, protest about Israel, protest any way you like—wave a flag, hold a placard—but supporting Palestine Action under the terms of the proscription order in this House and in the House of Commons, overwhelmingly passed, deserves to have action taken. That is why the police are upholding that legislation currently.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, a recent report by Policy Exchange has highlighted the chaotic nature of the application of the law regarding unfair and disproportionate disruption caused by protesters as a result of the Ziegler ruling by the Supreme Court. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to reform the law of public protest so that prosecutors do not need to prove that a conviction would not be disproportionate interference in convention rights, and so reconcile the problems caused by the Ziegler ruling?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised an extremely important point. I do not want to answer it directly at the Dispatch Box now; I will need to reflect on the issues he has raised. I hope he will understand that. I will get back to him in writing so that there is clarity on that ruling.
Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the situation in Epping is already being woefully managed. The police have admitted escorting pro-migrant demonstrators to an asylum hotel, having previously denied having done so, and we know that there have been concerning incidents of violent behaviour. Further and larger protests are expected this weekend, and they have already spread from Epping to London following claims that migrants are being put up in a hotel in Canary Wharf. We on these Benches are clear that violence and disorder on our streets are always unacceptable, so what urgent steps are the Government taking, in conjunction with the police, to make sure that we do not see a return to the violence of last summer? How will the Minister and his colleagues ensure that misinformation, which could cause and inflame unrest, does not prevail?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I hope that I can help him. Essex Police have issued a statement:
“There are claims on social media that Essex Police officers ‘bussed’ protesters to the protest outside the Bell Hotel on Thursday July 17. This is categorically wrong”.
Now, I can only accept what Essex Police have said: I am not on the ground there. That is Essex Police’s statement. The noble Lord will also know, because it is in the Statement, that Essex Police arrested an individual who was subsequently charged, whose trial is due to start on 26 August and who has been remanded in custody until that time. I am therefore not able to comment on that issue any more.
Essex Police have also arrested individuals in connection with the protest. Going back to the debate we have just had, peaceful protest is legitimate, but if that peaceful protest crosses over into alleged violence or other activity, the police have a right to act, and they have made arrests in connection with that incident as well. So I say to colleagues across the House and across the nation that peaceful protest is acceptable, violent protest is not, and the police walk a very thin line to ensure that they allow peaceful protest while ensuring that acts of violence or intimidation are not acceptable and are not undertaken. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support when this House rises to ensure that we maintain that message through the summer.
Palestine Action Protests: Arrests
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely, we do. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government take the way in which this is interpreted and executed by the police very seriously. But what I am saying is that it is not the responsibility of this Government to make judgments on the ground, which police officers are trained and supported to do, about what action to take in relation to the legislation that we have passed. It is the job of the police to make those independent judgments—it is not for me as the Minister to say that they should arrest somebody or not arrest somebody. That is a judgment for the police under the legislative framework that this House and the House of Commons set.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The recent review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Dame Penny Mordaunt reported an onslaught of antisemitism since the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel—a conclusion reached after a review of evidence from a range of institutions, including the NHS and the police. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, told the “Today” programme recently that Jewish people were ostracised in the work- place simply because they are Jewish. Does the Minister recognise the conclusions reached in the report, and how many of its 10 recommendations will the Government support so that we can begin to end the horrific scourge of antisemitism in our country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This Government—and I personally—have no time for antisemitism. We will take action against it; we will look at the review and the reports that have been made and respond to the recommendations in due course. I hope the noble Lord will be aware that antisemitism is a curse on our society, one that we should tackle very strongly, and this Government will do so. I hope that with his support we will continue to look at how we can build bridges to ensure that antisemitism is no longer a feature of our society.
Illegal Migration: Pull Factors
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We collect biometric data. I have said many times in this House that, when I was last a Home Office Minister, in 2009-10, we had identity cards and we planned to expand them further. They were scrapped by the then coalition Government. That is a decision that we may all wish to reflect on. Indeed, I know that some Members who voted for that now reflect with some passion that it was the wrong decision at the time. We need to focus on where we are now. It is not about building a wider identity card system but about gathering the identities of those who come here illegally, ensuring that those who claim asylum do so properly, processing them very quickly and returning those who are here illegally or who do not meet the asylum criteria.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, some 22,000 people have used small boat crossings to illegally breach our borders so far this year, which is some 57% up on the same period last year. The situation is quite obviously out of control and the pull factors are overwhelming any deterrent effect that the Government wish to create with their border security Bill. Will the Minister please update the House with the latest biographical information he has on those arriving in small boats—I realise that perhaps he does not have it to hand today? What is the average age of those arriving? What is their sex? Can he tell us the reason most commonly given by them as to why they have come to the UK illegally? As I say, if he does not have that information, perhaps he would write to me and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse on all that detail in the half a minute that I have to answer his question, but I can say that 35,000 failed asylum seekers who came on small boats were removed last year, which is 13% more than in the 12 months previous, when his Government were in charge. There has been a 51% increase in the number of people who have been arrested and prosecuted on illegal working visits. We are taking action on these difficulties. Although he says that the figure is high now, and it is, it is nowhere near the 43,000 people a year who were coming in 2018. In 2016, only 400 people crossed the channel, and I think he knows who was in charge when that rise occurred.
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, illegal migration is one of the most challenging issues we face today. More than 21,000 people have used small boat crossings to illegally breach our borders this year so far. That number is up 56% from the same period last year. Some 78% of people polled by YouGov think that the Government’s handling of it is bad. As of 7 July, 51% of polled voters said that immigration and asylum was the single most important issue facing the country.
It is against this that the Government have to act. We disagree with the Government on many aspects of their approach to illegal migration and small boat crossings, as we are making very clear in our discussions on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, but it would be remiss of me not to welcome to some extent this step from the Government, which is a reflection of the fact that they appreciate the gravity of the situation and are making an attempt to deal with it. We on these Benches want to stop small boat crossings, and we must recognise that this is at least a small step in the right direction.
However, it would be remiss of me to let the Government get away with their Statement without some questions from our side. It may be that the intention behind this agreement is to create some sort of deterrent, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that this indeed is the Government’s intention. I do not wish to be condescending, but I assume that the plan, with such a low rate of return, is not itself designed to get the numbers down in any meaningful sense—the Minister said last week in Committee on the Bill that it takes time, and I agree with that—but I am afraid it is obvious to me that what we have before us is not a deterrent. If noble Lords permit me, I will run through the numbers which will explain why this is the case.
Under the agreement, the Government will return one in every 17 illegal immigrants arriving in the UK. Some 44,000 illegal migrants have arrived in the UK by small boats since Labour took power last year, and this year alone more than 21,117 migrants have crossed the channel—a 56% rise on the same period in 2024. Under this plan, the Government will still allow 94% of these illegal immigrants to stay in the United Kingdom. If you were in Calais considering making the crossing over to the UK in a small boat, would a 94% success rate be a deterrent to you?
I put it to the Minister that, with these odds, the overwhelming likelihood is that people will bank on being in the 94% and not in the 6% of people who face being returned to France. Then, of course, there is the question of what happens to those in the very unlucky 6% who return to France. What is to stop them from simply trying again? Can the Minister confirm to us now that no one coming over in a small boat will be one of the 6% who were returned previously? If people are simply able to try again, what is the point in returning them at all? Can the Minister tell us what the French will do with those who have been returned? I cannot imagine that the French taxpayer will want to foot the bill for housing them.
Finally, can the Minister clear up the question of whether the European Union will approve this plan? There is no certainty that the French can fulfil their side of the bargain without EU consent. It is obvious that several southern European states are getting ready to push back hard against this agreement as proposed. This discussion is entirely academic unless there is some clarity about whether it will come to fruition.
It is clear to us that the only way to properly address this problem is to remove every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago. Indeed, the Government inherited a deterrent of this magnitude when they came into office. We, when in government, did all the heavy lifting. The plan was ready to go. All the Home Secretary had to do was press “go”, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start. As a result, we now see record numbers crossing.
This side recognises some fundamental truths that the Government seem intent on ignoring. The first is that supply in this matter is driven by demand. The second is that supply will always try to meet demand, even under absolute prohibition. As I mentioned last week in a Bill Committee, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was—I am sure noble Lords agree—quite a bit stronger than anything the Government are proposing, yet that failed.
The third and final truth is that, if you want to stop supply, you need to stop demand. The simple fact of the matter is that, while there are thousands of people willing to pay massive sums of money to come to the UK illegally, there will be criminal gangs ready to take the money and get them here. Unless we deter them from coming, the gangs will not be smashed and the numbers will continue to rise. That 6% simply will not cut it; we need 100% removals as a deterrent.
Beyond the fundamental criticism of the Government’s plan, many further procedural issues arise from the agreement as it has been set out by the Government. For one thing, it is clear that every one of the 50 people selected to be returned to France would have the opportunity to launch lengthy, costly legal challenges against this decision. It is also clear that the French—after all the legal challenges and hoops have been jumped through—could simply refuse to accept whoever we try to send back.
I have said that this is a step in the right direction and, for all my criticism of the Government today, I mean that, but, most of all, we cannot afford to be ambiguous at this stage. If we have a system that sends back one in 17 people and allows them all to launch a legal challenge against this for—let us not forget—being returned to a safe third country 21 miles away, does it not send the message that the Government are not particularly serious about addressing this issue?
I believe that the Government and many noble Lords across the House recognise the seriousness of the situation. The numbers we have seen this year are, in short, totally out of control. This issue overwhelmingly concerns people in the United Kingdom, and I am pleased that the Government are trying to get a handle on it. Indeed, getting the French to do anything after the £770 million that we have given them is welcome. However, I do not believe that this plan will achieve what the Government intend. It is simply too soft; it sends back far too few people and is ripe for delay and vexatious claims—all at the taxpayers’ expense. The numbers simply do not add up. We cannot cheer in support of a plan that sends back 6% of arrivals as a success, when the numbers this year are up 56%.
The noble Lord faces a serious issue and we appreciate that but, in doing so, he and his Government need to introduce a serious solution. I am afraid that what is before us today will not cut the mustard, and I think the noble Lord and the Government are aware of that.