Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments raise a very important point, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for opening the group with the arguments she made. The important point is the need to ensure that interpretation and translation services in our asylum and immigration system are both adequate and effective. Self-evidently, clear and accurate communication is essential to the fairness and integrity of any decision-making process, and that is particularly true in cases which can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. The amendments before us seek to strengthen the standards applied to interpreters and translators. In principle, that is a very sensible and worthwhile aim.

Before we consider making changes to the existing framework, it would be more helpful to understand from the Minister the current position in a little more detail. The noble Baroness laid out specific deficiencies that she believes are presently affecting the system in providing these services. Objective standards are important, but some are already in place under the current arrangements, such as the interpreters code of conduct—the noble Baroness mentioned this and the need for a review of that code in her speech. If there are demonstrable gaps or failings in quality assurance, that would certainly merit attention. Indeed, we would welcome assurances from the Minister on this point that the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, are being actively addressed. Equally, if existing mechanisms are already achieving those aims, we should be cautious about introducing additional prescription, which may duplicate what is already in operation.

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

My Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker, and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules provides that:

“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.


Interpreters are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.

It is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get clarification on this important subject area.

Amendments 79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage.

Throughout this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person, remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.

The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases, and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is required.

The minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all, published on GOV.UK.

It is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and, of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.

Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further action.

The amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short time.

The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation, noting this on the interview record.

Specifically on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that translations meet the high standards required.

Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.

As I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly, specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.

However, I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his response, and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support. I am encouraged that my concerns have been well understood and I appreciate the commitment to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. At this stage, I ask only that the Government resist kicking this issue into touch and forgetting it, as happened with the victims’ code, but go very quickly to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review, which I warmly welcome. On that hopeful note, I thank the Minister once again and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

I strongly support that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to his interpretation of the letter. I prefer to rely on Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will refer to later, as the defence against the offence that he allegedly conducted in his letter.

These amendments target asylum and modern slavery claims made by those who have entered the UK irregularly. They risk compounding injustice and playing directly into the hands of the very criminals we seek to defeat. First, focusing on restriction of access to modern slavery protections for individuals, particularly those identified as illegal entrants, risks undermining the UK’s reputation for compliance with our international obligations, notably with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking. We must remember that victims of trafficking are frequently coerced into criminal activity and that extending disqualification criteria or imposing restrictions disproportionately affects genuine survivors of modern slavery.

Secondly, if these amendments aim to limit the judicial scrutiny of claims made by irregular arrivals seeking protection, they threaten the balance of fairness that underpins our legal system. Any such attempt would introduce legal uncertainty and risks violating individual human rights. Asylum legislation and decision-making must prioritise the principles of compliance with human rights obligations. We resist the temptation to craft legislation based on a political narrative that disregards the plight of those fleeing persecution and violence.

We must focus finite resources on those who truly need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. For these reasons, based on principles of compassion, international compliance and operational effectiveness against criminal exploitation, we reject these amendments.

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

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.

I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.

Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.

On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.

The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.

We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose long and well-known experience in these matters I greatly respect. I have sympathy for the underlying principle of her amendment, but I fear that, though well-intentioned, it would take us back to the position that, in our view, Parliament quite rightly sought to clarify in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Section 37 of that Act was introduced for a very clear reason: to ensure that the UK, while complying with its obligations under the refugee convention, could define in domestic law how those obligations should be interpreted and applied. This amendment would lead to the repealing of Section 37 and the expansion of the statutory defence and, in our view, would go far beyond what the refugee convention requires.

Article 31 exists to protect those who come directly from danger and present themselves without delay. It does not exist to provide a blanket immunity for all irregular entrants, including those who have travelled through safe countries and have not claimed asylum there.

In our view, there has to be a system that is firm, not open to abuse and, above all, determined by Parliament. Diluting the provisions of the 2022 Act would undermine confidence and encourage, not reduce, the dangerous business of people smuggling. For those reasons, although I acknowledge the sincere spirit in which this amendment is brought forward, I respectfully urge noble Lords to oppose it.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to remove the requirement that asylum seekers must come directly to the UK to benefit from the defence provided by Article 31 of the refugee convention. Furthermore, it seeks to expand the list of specific offences set out in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which asylum seekers who arrive illegally have a statutory defence against. I thank my noble friend for her amendment, while noting the previous amendments she suggested during the passage of the Bill, and for her kind words about my response to the debate on her previous amendment in Committee.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. Indeed, all our asylum-related legislation, rules and guidance will continue to fully comply with all our international obligations. I hope that provides a level of assurance for the avoidance of any doubt. All claims which are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against the background of published country information.

The Government consider that those fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country in which it is reasonable to do so. This is in the asylum seeker’s best interest, serves to reduce the risk inherent in making further dangerous attempts to reach the UK illegally, and prevents further profit going to criminal people and those who organise the terrible criminal offences the Bill is designed to stop.

Providing a statutory defence to illegal arrival and illegal entry would, in effect, provide a defence to virtually all individuals who reach the UK by illegal means. It is difficult to see how this could be seen to support the Government’s stance on enforcing the law on illegal migration. Again, it would only undermine the confidence of UK citizens in our wish to maintain a fair and safe immigration system.

Both my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the question of recognised refugees being prosecuted for illegal entry, so I will spend a bit of time explaining the grounds when considering whether or not to make an arrest. In that case, Immigration Enforcement criminal and financial investigators must consider whether or not the suspect is likely to benefit from the statutory defence in Section 31. They must consider the defence as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as the published CPS guidance on statutory defences. If it is deemed that the individual would benefit from the defence, they are not to make an arrest. If evidence suggests that a prosecution would be possible then continuous liaison between investigators and the relevant asylum caseworker must be undertaken throughout the asylum claim process.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Amendment 26 to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which permits a registered social housing provider to issue a closure notice in respect of premises they own or manage, under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have stated, a closure notice under Section 76 of that Act is a notice which prohibits a person from accessing specific premises. Currently, such a notice can be issued only by the police or the local authority, but Schedule 2 permits an RSH to also issue such notices.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the RSH provider is able to issue a closure notice for an individual flat in the premises it is responsible for. Given that paragraph (2)(b) of Schedule 2 does not specify that fact, I look forward to the Minister’s answer and hope he might clarify that point.

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

I thank all noble Lords for this short but focused debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing his amendment. As he has explained, it seeks to allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage.

The closure power is a fast, flexible power that can be used to protect victims and communities by quickly closing premises that are causing nuisance or disorder. Clause 5 and Schedule 2 extend the closure power to registered social housing providers. Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for closure orders, to enable them to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is clear that registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing. There is statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers are expected to meet the same legal tests as set out in the 2014 Act that the noble Lord mentioned. This will ensure that all relevant agencies have the right tools to tackle anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively. In turn, this will save police and local authorities time, as housing providers will be able to make applications directly, rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised his concerns about risks of abuse. For instance, he was concerned that extending the power to housing providers might risk it being misused to evict tenants, such as those in rent arrears. There are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse. Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult with relevant partners prior to the issuing of a closure notice. This requirement is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that the process will go through the courts.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of the premises. This could therefore already include an individual flat within a housing block. Indeed, that would be the expectation: that this targets individual households, rather than whole blocks of flats. We are confident that the current legislative framework and the Bill will cover that and make that clear. On the basis of that clarification—of course, I will reflect on Hansard and the points he specifically raised about the 2014 Act, and I will write to him in more detail if I need to—I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am quite happy with all the standards and powers, and I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones; I know there are robust standards. The only thing I was interested in was whether the word “premises” includes individual flats in a housing block. I have the Minister’s 98% assurance on that. I would be very grateful if he and his officials would reflect on that and, at some point, confirm absolutely to the House that the power exists to close an individual flat or a couple of flats, and not just the whole shooting match of the block. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.

Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.

First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.

Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.

Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.

The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.

These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

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

My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.

For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.

As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.

Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome, and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Katz, for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I do not accept the criticisms that they made. I suggest that these amendments are responsible, pragmatic and necessary and would restore faith in the principle that sovereignty means that we decide who may enter, who may stay and who must be removed. The backlog of claims, the scale of illegal entries and the long delays in removals all speak to a system that lacks credibility, and these amendments would move us towards a stronger, fairer, more sustainable regime. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, before we move on, I remind noble Lords that the guidance in paragraph 8.82 of the Companion says that Members

“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.

I say this because speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.

I add that there have been a couple of occasions where we have had Back-Benchers intervening in the middle of the process of Front-Benchers winding up. That is not the usual practice of the House either.

Clause 43: Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail

Amendment 38

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, to add to what noble Lords expect I would say, this seemingly small amendment and its consequential amendments seek to remove the words

“to be presumed to have been”

from Clause 48. It has enormous implications, in effect transforming a balanced legal measure into an irreversible and potentially unjust set of rules.

I will not read out Article 33 of the convention on refugees, but it is quite clear that it says that the person would have

“been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.

The explanatory memorandum from the UNHCR on what a serious crime is gives examples of murder, rape, arson and armed robbery. The amendment certainly does not meet that.

In short, the existing text in Clause 48 is carefully constructed to allow the courts to address serious criminality, such as sexual offences, while remaining compliant with our international obligations that require an assessment of whether the person poses a continuing danger to the community. Amendment 48 destroys this necessary balance and should be rejected.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.

Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.

Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.

The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that the Government have not listened to the arguments advanced here. Clause 48 will complicate this area of law by reintroducing the confusion that was cleared up by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. No noble Lord raised any issue with that change at the time, so there is no reason to be reintroducing the rebuttable presumption. It is surely farcical that convictions for sexual offences could be argued to be not particularly serious crimes, when no other offence could be so argued. This seems like a case of intransigence on the part of the Government and a denial of the clear error they have made. As disappointing as this is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

It is particularly notable that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has signed this amendment. Clearly, that cross-party nature demonstrates the importance of this amendment, and I thank those who have supported it. It reflects the best traditions of British justice: open, fair and subject to the light of public examination.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short but focused debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I hope that we do not see too many fireworks during the course of my response. It is good to be able to debate the matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I would add that, although he may not be very pleased with what I am about to say, I am very pleased, as I think we all are, to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place following his accident.

I fully understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in tabling this amendment. I will set out the Government’s position and I hope that noble Lords will appreciate why we are taking the position that we are. To be absolutely clear, the Government place the highest priority on ensuring that openness and transparency are at the heart of our justice system. They are also at the heart of the judiciary’s work, demonstrated in particular by the establishment of the Transparency and Open Justice Board by the Lady Chief Justice last year to, as she said,

“lead and coordinate the promotion of transparency and open justice across the courts and tribunals of England and Wales”.

Understanding the clear public interest in this area, work to consider the publication of all immigration and asylum chamber decisions began some months ago. Discussions between the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and the judiciary are ongoing. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further at this time. I can confirm that, in principle, the judiciary supports the publication of judgments. However, at this point it is important to restate, for the sake of comity between different arms of the state, that this really is a matter for the judiciary and something that Parliament has very rarely legislated on.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned, as he did when we discussed this in Committee, that Lower-tier Tribunals will publish their judgments. In response to that I can say that each chamber takes its own approach; some publish and some do not. Generally, chambers that handle sensitive matters, such as immigration but also mental health and special educational needs, have tended not to publish their decisions for what I would hope might be obvious reasons. However, it is clear that the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, giving it a similar status to the High Court, which means that its decisions can set binding precedents and are enforceable without further intervention. Because of this, transparency and accessibility are essential, and reported determinations are routinely published, whereas First-tier Tribunal decisions will, in practice, be more closely tied to the facts of a specific case and therefore be of more limited utility to those journalists or academics who wish to examine them.

I note, putting aside some of the technical deficiencies in the amendment, that the First-tier Tribunal does not make judgments but gives decisions. Let me be clear that this is not a straightforward proposal. Any decision to publish all FTT IAC decisions is not about operational cost and resource implications. From additional administrative resources to judicial training, substantial work would be involved in publishing decision notices and written reasons for all decisions, of which the First-tier Tribunal currently delivers approximately 2,500 per month. This includes thousands of decisions without reasons that are published every year, which would be fairly otiose—really just replicating the outcome of that decision.

It is important to note that publication requires judges to consider whether personal details need to be removed from a decision, or even whether an anonymity order is in place, and we would expect an increase in applications for anonymisation to be received. We would expect additional judicial training to be required. Also, decisions in the IAC can be delivered orally. Publishing these would involve an administrative process and judicial oversight, with an impact on the capacity of the tribunal, as I said. To conclude, the Government maintain our view that primary legislation is not necessary.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I sympathise with the Minister, because obviously the judiciary has reassured him—or perhaps not reassured him but told him—that this will add to its burden. But given the clear view across this House that it is in the interests of strengthening confidence in our system, might he have a word with the judiciary and point out that this Bleak House-style obscurantism on its part does not foster confidence in the judiciary in the way that every part of this House would wish to see?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I am not sure it is really my position to go around having a word, as he put it, with any members of the judiciary, or indeed, that of any member of the Government to be having a word with members of the judiciary, because we quite like its independence. However, as I said, there are discussions going on between HMCTS, the MoJ and the judiciary about publishing, and in principle the judiciary supports the publication of judgments, but it is in its hands, and it is appropriate that it is its decision to make. That is because we value the rule of law in this country, and part of the rule of law is that we have an independent judiciary.

As I was saying, we still believe, as I said in Committee, that primary legislation is not necessary to effect change in this area, and such a change would be most appropriately delivered through non-legislative means or in procedural rules. In the meantime, members of the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of written reasons in a specific case. Decisions of the immigration and asylum chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against First-tier decisions on points of law, as I have said, are already routinely published online, and those are the ones that are of most interest and saliency when it comes to understanding the evolution of immigration to this country. Given that explanation, and also, I hope, the understanding that there is a process to consider publication going on, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions that we posed. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for the amendment, my noble friend Lord Davies and, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I am delighted to see back in the Chamber and, earlier today, chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as excellently as ever.

I am afraid I must let the Minister down gently. First, he said the use of “judgments” in the amendment was wrong, because the employment tribunal makes findings, and this was at the heart of his defence. If he looks carefully, he might find that a court would construe judgment in this section of the Act to include all findings and decisions of the tribunal, because that is exactly the word that is used in relation to the employment tribunal.

The Minister’s second reason was that they are having discussions with the MoJ, and the MoJ is having discussions with the judges; there are no timelines, no dates, no indication of what is going to be said, but noble Lords should feel reassured by that. I am afraid that is a warm bath of words. The long and short is that the resource implications of publishing these decisions are limited because we know that all these judgments are provided electronically, because that is the practice—one needs to look only at the immigration decision practice direction. So I do not accept that reason; it is very easy for them to be published, and the cost of it would probably be less than we spend on asylum hotels in a day or two.

For those reasons, I say to noble Lords that it is surely a right to get the facts about decision-making on human rights grounds out there for the public and journalists to see. To adopt the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, let us let the sunlight in. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee and will ask a couple of questions about the “concerned in” area. The Government’s Amendments 4 and 8 further expand the scope of offences in Clauses 13 and 14 by introducing this liability to be “concerned in” the supply or handling of articles. I understand that some of this phraseology is also in some of our counterterrorism laws, and I wonder whether it has been drawn from those very serious laws and just put in this in the moment.

The original intention of Clauses 13 to 17 was to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs. As my noble friend says, the worry is that the expansion of the offences risks inadvertently criminalising people who should be protected and providing unintended harms to those who are most vulnerable.

I have one other point about criminalising non-criminal actors. Perhaps the Minister could say a little word about legal practitioners. There is a certain ambiguity created by these broad offences which might risk affecting legal practitioners who provide legitimate services. Perhaps he could tell us whether that can be explicitly put into the Bill or explicitly ruled out of the amendments that the Government have put before us today.

In summary, these government amendments are seeking to widen further the extraterritorial counterterror-style offences. In turn, that requires statutory guardrails to prevent them targeting vulnerable individuals, and legal representation and legal practitioners, instead of solely the organised crime networks. I hope the Minister can put that matter to rest.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but worthwhile debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling Amendments 3 and 6, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to them. These seek to criminalise possession with intent to supply and to ensure that those who arrange for a relevant item to be received by a third party fall into the scope of the offence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, acknowledged, in response to the debate that we had in Committee on these amendments, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 and 17. These build on proposals advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in Committee and, indeed, this evening on Report.

In refining the approach, we have tabled amendments that ensure that individuals who are concerned in the supply chain can be held accountable where they know that their actions are enabling criminal activity, and that those who are knowingly concerned in supplying articles for use in immigration crime fall in scope. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, noted, criminals are always developing new ways to pursue organised immigration crime, and we have to stay on top of them. These amendments are part of the package of measures in the Bill, and that is why we have tabled these government amendments, to address the concerns around third-party supply that were noted in Committee.

I believe that this matches the intent in the noble Lords’ amendments, both on Report and in Committee, by ensuring that those who are concerned in the supply of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime, and those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime, are in scope of this offence. As such, I hope that noble Lords are content with the government amendments and will not press theirs.

This is a proportionate and necessary step, one that targets the infrastructure behind the wicked trade of organised immigration crime. It allows us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. As we have already heard tonight, organised immigration crime works internationally, through networks of facilitators and organisers. This new offence, strengthened by this amendment, is about acting before the facilitation offences have happened, to prevent crossings and the risking of life, and everything that goes with it.

These amendments have safeguards in place, reflecting our wider discussion on this aspect, in that the individual must be knowingly engaged in facilitation to fall into scope, and law enforcement must be able to prove that knowledge, protecting those who act in good faith from these offences.

I turn to some of the questions and points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord German, raised concerns about the language in the Bill and its precision.

First, on how “concerned in” is any different from the “handling” wording in the Bill—as Lord German asked—the Bill equips law enforcement with counter- terror-style powers to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations far earlier, well before a boat is launched from the French coast and lives are put at risk. The amendment strengthens these powers, setting out that someone does not need to smuggle people into the UK themselves to face jail time. Law enforcement can also use these powers to go after people playing other roles in smuggling operations. This may include, for instance, providing a lorry to try smuggling people into the UK, sending money to buy small boat parts, or storing dinghies in warehouses knowing full well that they are being used for channel crossings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the breadth and vagueness of the use of “concerned in”. Would it, for instance, capture those who are selling boat equipment to sailors? To be clear, that is not the intention here. All that is changing with this amendment is setting out that someone involved in people-smuggling operations can face jail time, not just those smuggling people into the UK themselves.

To go to the heart of whether this is an overreach, which I think is the concern coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches, let us be absolutely clear, and I think we can all agree on this: vile people smugglers are wreaking havoc on our borders and are putting lives at risk to line their own pockets. None the less, law enforcement must follow a strict legal test and prove that someone knew the activity was part of smuggling operations. As with any criminal offence, independent prosecutors will look at all factors when considering prosecution and judge every case on its merits. Indeed, the officers who are carrying out potential seizures and applying for arrest warrants will bear in mind the usual high bar of evidential standards that prosecutors require for a successful prosecution. Nothing changes there.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the impact on legal practitioners. To be clear, this is about supplying goods, not services. There is a clear difference between people who want to supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying people with legal services to defend an appeal claim for asylum, for instance.

Lastly, I turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who asked for the bigger picture. This Bill is about making it harder for vile smugglers to operate. The new counterterror-style powers equip law enforcement with the tools that it needs to act earlier against the smugglers. I would say to the noble Lord that even one prosecution that stops a smuggler in their tracks could save countless lives. We have seen over many summers the number of people who are crammed on to those boats. If we can stop any single boat launching, through getting those dinghies seized earlier, that will have a material impact in saving lives.

This is tough legislation that builds upon the surge in operational action against people-smuggling networks. The National Crime Agency carried out around 350 disruptions on organised immigration crime networks—its highest level on record and a 40% increase on the previous year. Through these amendments, we send a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. This aligns with the Government’s broader commitment to stop the boats and dismantle the nefarious networks that profit from the evil of human exploitation, and reinforces our resolve to tackle every link in the chain of illegal migration.

The Government’s approach has been clear from taking office: to go after the gangs. We need these offences enacted to allow operational colleagues to do their jobs. They will strengthen our ability to prosecute facilitators and reinforce our stance that nobody concerned in the supply of articles for use in such offences should be beyond the reach of the law.

Having said that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw his amendment. We shall then formally move the government amendments in this group.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short group. I have just one observation on the comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, around the phrase “concerned in”, which appears in the amendments. He stated that it appears in counterterrorism law. It also appears frequently in the criminal law around misuse of drugs. I would suggest that the criminal courts are well used to both interpreting and applying that phrase; there is a wealth of case law on it. I would also suggest that it is not unusual, difficult or exceptional phraseology.

I am very grateful for the assurances from the Minister. It is very welcome that the Government have listened to our concerns and addressed them with these amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

If I may stand up, not having sat down, I do not think the noble Lord would argue that somebody who has beaten a person up, for example, should not be entitled to a defence because it is an offence. We do not know the position until that person has been through the process. However, we should not weary the House—I do not want to imply that the noble Lord is wearying the House—by taking this further, so I again beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this group is certainly a tale of two halves. We on these Benches are unable to support the first two amendments. The United Kingdom’s problems with the current migration crisis stem not necessarily from the refugee convention itself. Rather, the problems lie with the metaphorical scaffolding which has been built around the convention. First, the Government are unable to carry out the will of the British people and turn away those who arrive here unlawfully. To all intents and purposes, the convention already has primacy in United Kingdom law. Those who qualify as asylum seekers have their subsistence paid for by the British state. They have an army of lawyers to hand.

Secondly, the problem lies with processing. Because this Government have continued to expand the incentives for people to come here, asylum processing remains severely backlogged. Removing legal safeguards against illegal migration will only make this problem worse. We already know the impact the Human Rights Act is having on our ability to control our borders and end this crisis. We will debate that Act further in a later group, so I will not go further now. Suffice to say that further incorporating treaties and conventions into domestic law is not the right way to reduce crossings by small boat.

Amendment 185 is another attempt to promote a world view divorced from reality. It is a measure that would allow people claiming to be asylum seekers to face no penalty for illegally entering this country regardless of the country they directly came from. It would open the door to even wider and more egregious exploitation of our already generous system. Let us consider what the effects of this amendment would mean. Asylum seekers, having arrived in France or a similarly safe third country, would have no disincentive to make the dangerous crossing over the channel. Not only would they be enticed by free board and lodging which we provide, alongside many other amenities on offer, but they would face no recourse to justice should they be forging their identity or embellishing their story.

What is the result? More money on the taxpayers’ bottom line, more stigmatisation and scepticism of actual and true asylum seekers, and more casualties among those crossing the channel. Our legal system, so long as we are part of this convention, should be practical and prudent. We cannot decriminalise all illegal migration so that we may feel virtuous when discussing refugees. We should reject this amendment.

Amendment 203I tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor is very pertinent. It seeks both to clarify and vindicate the rights of the United Kingdom under Article 31 of the refugee convention. It does so at a time when, as we have heard, its provisions are under increased scrutiny. While other Members of this House—those on the Benches opposite—attempt to dilute our sovereign right to control our borders, I am grateful to those on this side who have the resolve to prioritise Britain’s interests while keeping us in line with our international obligations.

This is a moderate and necessary amendment. As it makes clear, only asylum seekers fleeing genuinely dangerous and war-torn countries will be able to enter the United Kingdom without fear of persecution. Those who pass through or stop in another country where their freedoms were not so threatened will not be able to claim in a court of law that they were fleeing persecution, for the evident reason that they will have chosen not to stop in a prior safe country. This should be our starting point.

The refugee convention exists to provide respite for those fleeing persecution and violence; it is a measure that was born not out of necessity but from pragmatism and benevolence. However, unending benevolence, which gives every person who enters our country the benefit of the doubt and allows everyone the same defences in court regardless of their last country of departure, will undermine confidence in the asylum system. It damages the national interest and endangers national security.

This amendment is in the national interest. We have seen for too long the effects of an over-lenient legal system that has not adequately dealt with those who arrive here illegally, those who seek not true refuge but our generosity. By articulating and vindicating the United Kingdom’s rights under Article 31 of the convention, we do a service not only to people of this country but to those who are genuine refugees who flee persecution.

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

My Lords, this has been an extensive and wide-ranging debate—certainly for the last day in Committee. None the less, I shall try to address the major points raised in the debate while being brief, given the hour.

Amendment 184, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to require that legislation, Immigration Rules and guidance are to be interpreted in compliance with the 1951 refugee convention. Where any such provision may be found by a court to be incompatible with the convention, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

I wish to thank my noble friend for her amendment, also noting the reflections that she made during Second Reading, including on how the refugee convention was a direct result of some of the worst atrocities seen in the last century. I might note that possibly Second Reading was a better place to have a long discussion of the rights and wrongs of the refugee convention and its fitness in this day and age than is Committee. I make it clear on the record, in addressing the comments of many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that the Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I have not had the pleasure of reading the Times as extensively as maybe I should have done at the weekend, but even so I shall not be drawn into commenting on leaked memos. However, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for mentioning, although it was not entirely germane to the debate but an important thing to register on this day, the international developments, particularly the release of hostages. I take this opportunity to join her, as I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to, in welcoming that development.

To go back to the Bill, all claims that are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against a background of published country information. We assess that Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as already drafted on the statute book, which sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in relation to Immigration Rules, is already a sufficient safeguard for ensuring that we remain compatible with our international obligations. As such, we do not consider this amendment necessary.

My noble friend’s other amendment, Amendment 185, seeks to amend Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by applying Article 31 of the refugee convention directly. In effect, this would require the courts, when considering whether a refugee is entitled to a defence provided by Article 31 and should not be convicted of an immigration offence, to make their good faith interpretation rather than interpreting the will of Parliament, as set out in Section 31. That picks up on some of the comments made by noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Harper.

Section 31 provides a defence for refugees charged with certain document-related offences if they entered the UK directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened, presenting themselves to the authorities without delay and claiming asylum as soon as reasonably practical. This defence is conditional on the refugee not having reasonably been able to seek protection in another country en route. While the defence under Section 31 of the 1999 Act provides important protection for refugees, it applies only in the circumstances outlined above—namely, to those who come directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened or who could not reasonably be expected to seek protection en route. In practice, we know that very few migrants will meet these criteria. Most will have transited through multiple safe countries where they could have sought protection, and therefore do not qualify under Section 31.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think we know from our experience of asylum seekers and migration that, generally speaking, one cannot take that almost continuous journey through many countries from a place, as indeed my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti set out in greater detail and with a greater grasp of geography than I can muster at this time of night, where people could potentially not be seen to have stopped in a safe country. We know that that does not happen and I think it would be a reasonable interpretation, not so much of the convention but just of the reality of what happens, that if we were to take on the interpretation as set out in the noble Lord’s Amendment 203I, we would be taking in practically nobody. That is not, as I say, the intention of this Government’s policy towards asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The Minister is presenting one counterfactual, which is that we would take almost no one in. The alternative is to do what we did, which is Ministers make decisions about quite large groups of people that we take in. I just point to our Afghan schemes and our schemes for Ukrainian refugees and British national passport holders from Hong Kong. Those were very significant and there is something very important about them: because they were decisions taken by people who were democratically accountable, supported by Parliament, they were largely supported by the vast majority of the British public. I think that is a better model than having a convention which is interpreted by courts in a way that the public do not support. I think that is a better alternative model and one which we delivered in practice with considerable public support. It is a better model, and I urge him to support it.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, I was not talking about schemes that were set up for specific groups of people in specific situations, such as those from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan, which the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, I am absolutely clear as well that I do not disagree with him or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on the principle that we would not want to leave that purely up to the courts rather than having it as part of legislation that has been proposed by Ministers and supported by both Houses of Parliament. I do not disagree with that, but the counter-counterfactual is also the case: if we excluded anyone who passed through any country in which they could reasonably stop, as a safe port of call, then we would not be taking anybody else in outside those established schemes. I do not think that is a reasonable, practical interpretation of the facts on the ground. For that reason, I am afraid that we will not be able to support Amendment 203I from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.

Before I finish, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had the courtesy to say that she would not be able to be in her place until the end of this stage of the debate. She took the opportunity when speaking to rail against the increasing authoritarianism and blaming of refugees for all the ills of this country. I urge her, and indeed all noble Lords, if they think this is the case for this Government, to read carefully the words of our Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Labour Party conference. He set out a clear case, with humane and progressive reasons, for controlling borders. Indeed, I point to the words of our new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. She is very clear that for people from, as she says, an ethnic minority, having a controlled system of borders is a good thing. There is nothing progressive about insecurity, whether insecurity of income, on our streets or on our borders. This Government were elected to tackle all three things, and we are determined to tackle them.

Given that, and given the time of night, I will conclude and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement in this group, even though some engagement was with a rather broader brush than ideally one would like in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did not need to be self-deprecating about not being a lawyer, nor did other noble Lords need to damn my amendments with faint praise for being surprisingly “legally coherent”, even though they disagreed with the substance.

Some noble Lords were of course going to use these amendments for the big debate that rages in our countries at the moment around the refugee convention. However, to go to the detail of my amendments, neither of them would affect the big debate about whether we should be in or out of the refugee convention, or whether we should be in it but periodically ignore it. My amendments were attempting to achieve some coherence in our statute book, which I think is what a Committee stage on a borders Bill should be about.

There are anomalies in the way that we are half-pregnant with the refugee convention at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, did not quite believe me when I said that Section 2 of the 1993 Act already provides that the Immigration Rules may not conflict with the refugee convention and therefore courts may decide on that matter. I would like him to believe me or, if he does not, to look at the statute, because Section 2 of the 1993 Act is still in force. The noble Lord then said that if what I say is correct, we would not need my amendment, but of course the rules are just the rules. Underneath the Immigration Rules there are executive decisions and guidance, and above the rules there is legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and understandably brought up the question of democracy, and other noble Lords engaged in the age-old debate about what democracy is and the relationship between elected parts of the constitution and the courts. There must be a relationship between the two because there is no democracy without the rule of law and arbitrary decisions could be made. The moment you legislate, you are passing some role to the judiciary. Some of us are happy with that and some of us do not want quite so much of that, but my amendments would expressly preserve parliamentary sovereignty as the overriding principle in our legislation, even under the Human Rights Act.

On Amendment 185, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for identifying the point I make about the anomaly in the current position. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because clearly I did not make myself clear enough in my opening remarks; he said that my amendment would be a licence for people to come with forged papers. The anomaly I refer to is that, as a refugee with forged papers, you get protection from prosecution now, but not as a refugee with no papers. That is the detail of what I was trying to achieve in these specific amendments, notwithstanding this very general debate, and I am grateful for that. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

This concern is not confined to us in this place. We need wider confidence in the system to deliver the border security that I believe everyone in this Chamber feels is seriously wanting. I will not dwell on the more controversial matter at hand—the nature of the appeals system and the continued existence of the immigration and asylum chamber of the tribunals. Suffice it to say that, as long as these courts and tribunals exist, transparency in respect of their judgments is absolutely necessary. It is a core plank of our judicial system and I cannot think of any serious lawyer who would argue against it. It is a vital mechanism by which we can trust what is proceeding and allow the public, and above all Parliament, effective oversight. Not least, it will ensure that the press have a proper eye to what is going on and can report and ensure that the law is being upheld as it was originally intended. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Faulks, for their Amendments 203F and 203G, which seek to introduce mandatory publication of immigration and asylum judgments from the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. I agree that accountability and transparency are absolutely vital for building trust and credibility in the immigration system. However, it remains the case that the judiciary is responsible for decisions on publishing individual judgments, including judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. The Government do not consider it necessary to legislate to change the current arrangements.

Members of the public and the media can still apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a copy of the judgment in a specific case, and the request will be considered by the president of the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. On the other hand, judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against First-tier decisions on points of law, are already routinely published online. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal are made on points of law, meaning that these decisions are likely to be of most interest and use to practitioners of the law and to the public through the lens of media outlets. Given the status quo, we see no reason to change it, and we feel that it is not simply a matter of transparency but of independence of the judiciary—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it the Government’s position that they would like to see the publication of these decisions, but it is a matter for judges to decide? Or is it the Government’s position that they would not like to see the publication of these decisions? If it is the former, what are the Government going to do to encourage judges to make that change, if they will not accept this amendment?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Members of the public or any interested parties can apply to have decisions of the First-tier Tribunal published, and it is the case that that can be decided by members of the judiciary. We see no reason—to sidestep the binary choice the noble Lord presents—to enforce that position on the judiciary.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

How does a member of the public ask about a decision and say, “Can you publish a decision in this case?”, if they do not know the name of it and do not know that it has been decided? The whole point of this exercise and these amendments is so that they are all there and you do not have to know about a case; you can look at a case and you say, “That is an excellent decision” or “That is an interesting decision” or “That is a very strange decision”. But if you do not know that the decision has been made, because you are sitting there like we all are here, how are you going to know to ask for it, other than to ask for every single decision to be published?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords that, in April 2022, the National Archives and the Ministry of Justice launched Find Case Law, which is an online service allowing everybody to access freely accessible court judgments and tribunal decisions.

It remains the case—I suppose it ill behoves me to point this out, but this is something that the Opposition Front Bench is a sudden convert to—that, in various passages of immigration law that the previous Government put through your Lordships’ House, Members opposite could have made this proposal. It is convenient that they have now decided that this is a worthy thing to do.

I do not think it is unfair to suggest that people with an interest in accessing judgments can make the application. Those persons are most likely to be interested journalists or other legal practitioners. I am sure that it is the case that, despite some of the other tribunals that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, enumerated for us, such as the land tribunal, just because it is openly accessible that does not mean that everybody is regularly searching through it.

We see no reason to change the status quo; it is for the judiciary for decide whether to publish decisions. This suited the previous Government, and this suits us as well. That is why I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord said that it “suits us”. What does that mean? Is he happy with a situation where the general public do not know, because the previous Government apparently did not make much of a fuss about this? Is that what he is saying?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

No, I am simply saying that cases in the Upper Tribunal are regularly published, which are the cases that present the most case law which is actually of use to legal practitioners and of interest to the media and the public. We should protect the independence of the judiciary in being able to make its own decisions about it.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I have one further question, if I may. We understand from the Minister’s colleague that there is likely to be legislation coming telling tribunals how they should make these decisions and how, in particular, they should perhaps be changing their approach to Article 8 and Article 3. In order to inform themselves as to how this is going, in terms of the First-tier Tribunal, would it not be rather useful if the Government at least knew what they were deciding on a regular basis?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It would probably ill behove me to predicate my answer on legislation that I have yet to see. As and when we get to the passage of that legislation, we can perhaps revisit this conversation, and he might want to bring back my words to haunt me, but as it currently stands, I cannot talk about legislation that, frankly, I have not seen.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I am obviously familiar with how difficult life can be at that Dispatch Box, and I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, who is of course deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. However, I am afraid his answers were not very satisfactory. In fact, if you had asked a First-tier Tribunal judge whether they would accept submissions made on the basis that “We like it how it is”, I suspect that you might get short shrift.

Therefore, although I am of course content to withdraw the amendments for now, I anticipate that we will bring them back on Report. I anticipate that this House will pass these amendments—it is obviously very interested in open justice and in the publication of judgments—so the world can see how our human rights decisions are made in immigration claims. Would the Government really try to overturn this in the House of Commons on the basis that “This is how it has been done, so we will leave it”? I find that difficult to believe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this amendment. The intention behind it is obviously very welcome. We need to make sure that those going through this process can understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is of course a duty of the Government to make sure that this can happen. To that end, I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the Committee that the Government are already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services, and how they plan to manage any increase in demand.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, to an extent, the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, for raising this matter of both practical importance and human dignity: the provision of translation and interpretation services within the Home Office.

The Government’s immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society. We believe, as I am sure not only the noble Baroness but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom.

However, obviously, there are circumstances where the needs of both protection and expediency trump this proposal. As we have already heard from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, there are individuals for whom translation and interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to begin the long journey of recovery and justice—for example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked to the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the high standards of delivery of these services. It is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency but of moral and legal obligation.

Paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules already makes it clear that the Home Secretary must provide, at public expense, an interpreter wherever necessary to allow an applicant to submit their case. This includes the substantive asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person’s life.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in the other place, an MP elected on the Reform ticket asked a number of His Majesty’s Government’s departments not to provide such translation services. I, for one, believe that the Government regret that approach. Both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and our society, and we will not undermine these principles. As I said, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services, not simply so that asylum seekers can access the system adequately but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, so that the system makes the right call the first time round.

Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by Immigration Enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights both affirm that a defendant must understand the charges against them and be able to mount a proper defence. This is not optional extra, and we do not treat it as such. As I said, the current Immigration Rules make clear the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services within the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help’s asylum services, which are available 24 hours a day, offer free, independent advice, guidance and information, including full interpretation services.

We have had some discussion about funding, and noble Lords will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this Government in public service delivery. We must therefore ensure that language services are cost effective, and the Home Office is committed to assessing language service needs and spend to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility and a compassionate, practical approach to translation. We understand well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about penny-pinching undermining the integrity of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about the cost gap in the sense, I suppose, of a counterfactual situation. I am not sure that any assessment has been made of that additional cost gap, but I will go back and ask officials whether that has been the case.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Having listened to the Minister, I am not sure that there would be much of a gap. However, this is what I was driving at: based on what rights would be put in place by this amendment, compared to what is already delivered, what will the gap be? Listening carefully to the Minister, he seems to me to be saying that, certainly in the Immigration Enforcement pieces of that list, the services are already delivered, so it may just be an argument about the quality of that service, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was pushing at. It may be useful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether there are areas here that are not specifically about Immigration Enforcement and where there may be a gap.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Indeed, that was what I was getting at. I am not entirely sure how easy or practical it is to make an assessment of the upgrade to professional services and what the additional cost would be. However, as I said, I will go back and talk to officials to see whether an assessment has been made.

In a similar vein, I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that I do not have to hand any sufficiently watertight briefing on the EU retained law aspect of her question. However, I will go back and talk to officials and write to her with a fuller explanation, rather than risking some barrack-room lawyership on my feet this evening.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for raising her amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of high-quality services provided by the Home Office, as well as the importance of high-quality translation services for people who are rightly seeking asylum and need that support to access our system adequately. The points raised today reflect our values as a nation and our commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of every individual. Given the points I have outlined, and the fact that our Immigration Rules already make clear the obligation of the Home Office to provide translation and interpretation services where necessary, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his very clear statement that the Government agree that they have a moral and legal obligation to make sure that people in these situations clearly understand what is happening. Rather than just writing to me, will he agree to have a meeting with me between now and the Bill’s next stage, so that we can both understand better what the EU law Act 2023 said, and so that I can understand more about paragraph 339 of the Immigration Rules which he referred to? It would be very good if those two things hit the spot of what I am after.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that considered reply, and I am glad to say that I agreed with at least part of what he said. There is much to welcome in Clause 48. I concur that it is appropriate for a person who is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act to fall within the definition, so the Minister and I agree on that point at least. He said that, in the view of the Government, our amendment is not consistent with the refugee convention, but I did not discern particularly clearly why. No doubt, the Minister and I can explore that in correspondence prior to Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.

When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?

On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.

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

I thank all noble Lords for the short but focused debate we have had on this set of amendments, moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I particularly pay tribute to my fellow GMB member, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport.

As I set out in Committee, we believe that current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are, as we know, increasingly fragmented. We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold on application should be reduced in future. The reason why a range of 2% to 10% has been chosen is that, in 2020, the previous Government reduced the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements from 10% to 2% in the workplace, so what the Bill proposes aligns with that. But, to be absolutely clear, we want to consult before making any decisions on whether we should bring forward secondary legislation and by how much the threshold should be varied, if at all. We will consult businesses—including, of course, small and medium-sized businesses—as part of that consultation process.

Should we decide to bring forward secondary legislation in the future, that legislation will be subject to full debate in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We will carry out an impact assessment at that time that will consider impacts on businesses, including, as before, small and medium-sized businesses.

I want to reassure all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in particular, that, whatever the application percentage in the bargaining unit is or may be, the fact remains that unions would still need to obtain a majority of a bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. That point is fundamental to the misconception that is coming from the Benches opposite about what this part of the Bill does or does not do. To be clear, this is not, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the “tyranny of the minority”; in fact, it is absolutely contrary to that point. This is ultimately about a trade union having to win a majority.

Experience has shown that this is not easy to achieve. The union will have to make a good case to persuade the majority in the bargaining unit to vote for recognition in a recognition ballot overseen by an independent, qualified person. It is in the trade union’s interest to be confident that it can win a majority in the ballot, otherwise it would still be prevented, as is currently the case, from applying for another statutory recognition ballot in the same bargaining unit for three years. That is why it is highly unlikely that a union will apply for statutory recognition when there is only one worker who is a member of that union. Indeed, if experience tells us anything, it is that it is highly likely that trade unions will continue to focus their efforts on larger workplaces where there is greater bang for the organising buck.

The union recognition process is generally consensual, and that is a good thing. In the nine years from 2017 to 2025, only 375 recognition applications have gone to the CAC. Close to half of the 1,476 recognition applications received since 1999 were withdrawn by unions at various stages of the recognition processes, in many cases because the parties have reached a voluntary agreement for recognition. The confrontation that has been set up by some speakers from the Benches opposite is a chimera; this is not the reality of organised workplaces. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 135.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the context in a bit more detail, but I am afraid I am not entirely persuaded. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

68: Clause 26, page 46, line 14, leave out “and” and insert “to”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.

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

My Lords, these government amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They target the application of the clause to a set of restricted variations, to better focus the measures on unscrupulous “fire and rehire” tactics. We have heard many representations from both businesses and trade unions on the effect of this measure, and we have listened to the well-argued points in this House and the other place. We have greatly valued the input and co-operation of groups across industry on this issue, including the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and their members, as well as the TUC, Unite, USDAW, the RMT and many other businesses and trade unions. It is our intention to ban the unscrupulous use of “fire and rehire”, and we were elected on a manifesto commitment to do so. However, we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions.

Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 mean that fire and rehire will be an automatic unfair dismissal in relation to restricted variations unless the employer is in severe financial difficulties and has no reasonable alternative. These restricted variations are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement and those changes to shift patterns that will be specified in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.

As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.

The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.

I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that

“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.

Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.

As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought for a minute that concord might break out across the House—it did at least partially, but not quite. However, as the short debate we have had today and the debates we had in Committee have shown—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, identified this—there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the unconscionable tactics we saw P&O Ferries use should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.

I begin with Amendments 74 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seek to make it clear that, where an employer makes redundancies because they have had to change location, this should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee at a work location because that location has had to close down, this is unfortunate but is still a redundancy situation. That is why new Section 104I will apply only when the principal reason for the dismissal falls within that section. Where an employee’s place of work is closed, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned code of practice.

Further, the changes that the Government are making through their amendments will mean that a change to the location at which an employee works is a non-restricted variation. This means that, even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree to a new work location will not be automatically unfair. An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals.

Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to limit the protections in the Bill to cases in which fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. Government Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clause’s protections on variations to certain terms—specifically pay, leave, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those terms were identified because variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire. This is, we believe, in line with the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.

In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the comments from Unite and Prospect. I think I am right in saying that they were askance. They show that there is a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand that Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We feel that, having consulted a wide range of trade unions—including, of course, the TUC—and a number of business organisations, as well as businesses themselves and representative business organisations, including the CBI and the BRC, we have struck the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.

Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, proposes to limit the clause to contract variations that are not one of a list of protected terms and are otherwise minor and non-detrimental. The Government’s amendments, which limit the clause’s automatic unfair dismissal protections to a list of restricted variations, achieve the noble Lord’s intended outcome; he very graciously acknowledged this. They also have the benefit of being specific. For example, the Government’s amendments will not require an employment tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation should be considered minor on the facts of each case. They also give employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes, which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lord’s amendment.

I therefore beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not to move Amendment 73.

Amendment 68 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

69: Clause 26, page 46, line 25, after “employment” insert “to make a restricted variation (see subsection (3B))”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments of clause 26 would limit new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to cases where the variation of the contract of employment was of a particular kind. This includes reductions in an employee’s pay or time off and changes to the number of hours an employee is required to work.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

76: Clause 26, page 46, line 31, at beginning insert “In the case of an employer that is not a local authority,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 26 at page 46, line 36 and page 47, line 2.

--- Later in debate ---

“Why should that matter?” you might ask, “since surely all the political funds will go to the Labour Party or Labour MPs”. Well, it does not. I have tried to look at union accounts, and I started with the obvious one—Unite. Unfortunately, we cannot see any recent accounts from Unite, as over the last three years it has provided only partial accounts to the Certification Officer, the auditors having refused to sign the full accounts because of the ongoing investigation into corruption in relation to the £112 million hotel deal. So, I was forced to go back to the most recent disclosed, which is the 2019 accounts. Have a look inside Unite’s return to the Certification Officer for 2019 to see where the political fund payments go to—it turns out that they list payments to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other organisations. Can that really be what members of Unite want to see their hard-earned wages go to?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for having raised what is a profoundly important issue, one that deserves very careful consideration by your Lordships’ House.

As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families, and it is not just a case of emotional turmoil. There are so many practical challenges as well, including hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and a need for sustained and focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around.

I am pleased to say that many good employers already recognise this: in the most extreme circumstances, they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion but continuity. A child battling serious illness often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally but consistently. Without job protection and some form of financial support, the very people whom we would expect to be there—parents—may find themselves unable to be so.

Of course, any new entitlement must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, designed carefully, with due attention to cost, clarity and implementation. Whereas on these Benches we do not take a fixed position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult but crucial area of employment and social policy.

I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate, and I hope that the Government will take from it not only a recognition of the challenge but a willingness to explore how it might be best addressed in law.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on Amendment 97, which seeks to introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously ill children, and I thank all noble Lords who participated in it. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his painful and very personal story. It is clear that, even after a fair number of not just years but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his family went through is still with him. On behalf of the whole House, I thank him for sharing that story.

I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute, as, I am sure, does every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, to the excellent work done by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis and their charity, It’s Never You, which provides vital support to the parents of seriously ill children. Ceri and Frances set up this charity in memory of their late son, Hugh, who died tragically in 2021 after battling a rare form of cancer. It’s Never You has worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to draft this amendment, and I know that Ceri and Frances have campaigned hard on this proposal to honour the memory of their son Hugh and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did.

It is of course vital that parents be able to spend time at the bedside of their sick child without the fear of loss of employment or financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating or physically draining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, set out so well. One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say that one can imagine, but perhaps one can never really fully understand unless one is in that situation.

I know that this challenge has been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and I want to emphasise that the Government are keen to continue to look at the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and It’s Never You. As the noble Baroness said, I have personally met Ceri and Frances several times already, and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have. We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind.

However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the Bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been prepared. I will highlight three reasons for this.

First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which was taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, as she set out a moment ago. Although the amendment rightly seeks to provide much-needed care to older children, it risks unintentionally undermining some fundamental principles of neonatal leave and pay, which were designed with the specific situation of newborns requiring medical care in mind. Much of the eligibility criteria for the leave and pay entitlements in the existing Act, for example, are connected to birth-related forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity, that simply would not apply to parents of other children. Similarly, the specific definition of “neonatal care” in the current Act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation. Again, this amendment would require that to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.

Secondly, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents may be eligible for support across England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the estimated take-up, familiarisation and business costs. Initially, external estimates suggest that the cost of this amendment could be in the low millions—the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that specifically—based on data from England only. However, those figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of all parents who may be eligible for support. The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility.

Thirdly, it is also right that the Government consider other suggestions of support that have been put forward by parents who are put in this incredibly challenging and difficult situation, such as the right to a career break to enable parents to take an extended period of time out of work to provide care for a seriously ill child, as has been highlighted by Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right that the Government explore all proposals before proceeding to legislate in order to ensure good law—indeed, a workable law—and the very best outcome for parents, which I think we all, across the House, agree is needed.

The Government appreciate that there is a significant challenge to be addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and costs of tackling it. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised GoFundMe and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefits system. That is undoubtedly an area that needs to be understood.

As the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, we need to understand the costs, and to have clarity and full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and the costs of tackling this issue and addressing it properly. However, I want to be very clear that we are listening, and I have been moved—as we all have—to hear of the distress caused by the incredibly challenging situation of serious childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for a way forward, and I hope noble Lords will take what I am about to say in the spirit intended. I make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to Ceri, Frances and It’s Never You, that we will consult on support for parents of seriously ill children, including the proposal for Hugh’s law, to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics of the support. We are doing this at pace—the consultation will run next year in 2026. We wish to continue working with It’s Never You, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who are interested—having heard the debate this evening and the strength of opinion across the House—on this extremely important matter, as we further explore this proposal.

It is appropriate that we consult publicly and provide space to hear a range of views to ensure that we arrive at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right. We want to make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable, and provides the support that so many parents need—indeed, that Ceri and Frances needed but did not have. It is important that we do not rush into it but have a considered approach. I therefore ask, while we undertake this consultation, that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 97.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening and, very specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his deeply personal and moving experience. What we sought to achieve with the amendment has been discussed at length. I appreciate that, but it was over many meetings. We asked several weeks ago for guidance if there were technical concerns. We got a response yesterday, which was very helpful, but I note that there is no indication within it that the amendment is inoperable, nor that these concerns could not be dealt with through the offer of a tidying-up amendment or, potentially, an alternative text at Third Reading. I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this and I do not wish to delay the House any further, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

On Amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary and grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative who the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

As we have heard, and perhaps in response to the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional sports body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces to better ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and that they are used as conciliatory opportunities to resolve tensions and maintain a good employer-worker relationship. As my noble friend said, this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understands the employment —and probably both parties to the grievance—and can provide real insight to the situation and focused support.

The inclusion of professional bodies, which may include legal representation in the legislation, may jeopardise the involved parties’ ability to engage in amicable conversation, with the concern that discussion may be significantly restrained as a result, with neither party willing to accept fault. The Government are rightly concerned that this will result in an increased likelihood of a failure to reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.

However, this in turn, as part of the proposal, would increase the cost of hearings for both parties, as the processes and the meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be particularly costly for smaller businesses, which may not have legal resources readily available—we have heard much already today, if not in previous debates in Committee and on Report, about that issue. Additionally, the introduction of legal expertise at these hearings may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute, as legal arguments may already have been heard during an internal hearing. It is worth noting that an amicable solution between the parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made, although of course that is not its intention.

Of course I understand that certain organisations, including those that provide legal services, would benefit. However, as previously noted when discussing similar amendments, an employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers if they set this out in the workers’ terms and conditions. This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates that there are 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases in UK organisations each year.

It is rare that I ever say this, let alone from the Dispatch Box, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. It would complicate a law that has been in place for over 20 years and, if accepted, will require that the employer checks secondary legislation for every case to see who is a responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained. These are additional administrative burdens that the Government are keen to avoid. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench has been keen to point out when they see fault in our proposals in other places—erroneously, I should add.

On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Government believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. If Amendment 98 was a solution in search of a problem, Amendment 99 is an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to bash a problem, in her view—namely, trade unions.

I am a former trade union official. I have also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager. Unions are a good part of our industrial landscape, as we have heard across the House. I join with others across the House in saying that it would better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from perfect, but although the cases that the noble Baroness raises undeniably raise issues about the trade unions she talked about, they do not undermine the day-to-day work of many trade unions and, in particular, of trade union reps. In the workplace, day in, day out and across the country, they work with employees and businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and to help those employees access their rights at work, which we deem fair and necessary.

Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Union officials allowed to accompany a worker, as prescribed in the existing framework, must be certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. By opening this role up to anyone the worker chooses, the amendment risks introducing individuals into the disciplinary and grievance hearings process who are not familiar with the workplace in question or, indeed, with the employment rights framework.

As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment, this is again likely to lead to a reduced likelihood of successful mediation of these disputes. The role of the recognised union representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that does not go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friend in disciplinary grievance proceedings, which may, in practice, cause more problems than solutions, given the sensitive nature of such a personal relationship.

In closing, it is unclear to the Government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit. In the consultations we have undertaken in government and prior to being elected, with both businesses and trade unions, the need to expand this right has not featured from either side in the workplace.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think the Minister may have answered his own question there, because if the consultation was with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists to go in, then they would give you one answer. I want to clarify one thing: it is true that I have never been a trade union official, but I have been a rank and file trade union member for decades. I am not anti-trade union, but I do not think the world stops and starts at trade unions.

I want to ask the Minister whether he understands that, at the moment, the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased is that any trade union official, even one from a union that you have never joined and from a completely unrelated sector, can accompany you—that is the way the law is. I wanted to know whether that is fair or whether that wording could change. What is wrong with, say, a Citizens Advice caseworker or what have you? The numbers of people who are in the trade unions just do not tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership, it is obviously two-tier and discriminatory at present.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To respond to the first point the noble Baroness made, perhaps I did not enunciate clearly enough, but I said that in the consultation the demand for change did not come from either trade unions or employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is the final word. This is not a trade union rights Bill; this is the Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers’ rights Bill. There are millions of workers who are not in trade unions for a variety of reasons, including your own Minister Angela Rayner, as I just noted. I simply suggest that when you ask employers or trade unionists whether there is a demand for this then rank and file workers are being ignored. I suggest that you acknowledge and empower them.

[Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to put the record straight, because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in a union. She is in a union. She is in the union called UNISON and has been for a number of years. I did not want noble Lords to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady of Nichols of Selby for that helpful clarification. I thought that was the case, but I am glad that she made it. She is in a far better position than I am to talk about UNISON and its membership.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I want to be clear that this issue has not come up in all the consultations we have undertaken, with a wide variety of stakeholders. It is not that I am saying, “We talked to some trade unions and, guess what, they’re quite happy with the status quo”. Genuinely, this issue has not come up. Simply, this is not an issue for workplaces. That is why I described it—

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

Does the Minister understand that there is a two-tier system here? If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody who is not a trade unionist. That is what is important.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, if there is a recognised trade union or you are a member of a trade union then you can take a trade union representative, but you also have the right to be accompanied by a workmate. If you are a member of a trade union, you do not need to take that trade union representative along; you could have a workmate come along. If responsible employers want to have more flexibility, they can write this into their terms and conditions. There is nothing to stop people doing that. That is why I suggested, to again use the phrase, that the solution to such a problem is not something we really need to respond to in the legislation because it might create unintended consequences and, in terms of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, unfair administrative burdens on employers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 98.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some very interesting comments here from various people. I remind noble Lords that all we are saying is that people should have a choice. They could have a trade union representative, fine, but 77.7% of people are in firms that do not have a trade union. But if there was a trade union, that is fine.

The alternative is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, you could have a fellow worker. But the point of the amendment is that we are saying that the workers need to have a trained person to represent them. It can be a trade unionist—that is fine—but, if it is not, it will be like when a person goes to the solicitor at the end of the road and gets him to represent them on a complicated issue: he is the wrong person to represent them on that issue. You have to have someone who has some training. The trade unionists have the training, but they do not represent everybody. We are saying that the person who is seeking help should have someone who is trained.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for what she said; I gather, from having spoken to her, that she will support the amendment in my name. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I would like to test the feelings of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around Amendment 103 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to prohibit work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. With regret, as he said, the noble Lord was unable to join us in the Chamber in Committee when we debated this amendment, which was moved on his behalf very ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I do not believe is in his place at the moment.

The Government have always been clear that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. You need only look at the Government’s track record on the national minimum wage and the provisions in this Bill to see how the Government are delivering on this commitment. I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising: the existing legislation is clear that aside from a very small number of exemptions, workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage should be paid accordingly. No ifs, no buts. These are the rules that our enforcement body enforces, and these are the rules that we expect businesses to abide by. Of course, the vast majority do, but those that do not undercut the responsible businesses unfairly, and we should all be agreed that this is not behaviour that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them. I want to repeat this very important point, not only for your Lordships’ House but for those who are listening to this debate outside: an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them.

If workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage are not being paid what they are due, there are protections in place so that they can receive what they are owed. The Government and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have raised and continue to raise awareness on workers’ rights, so that no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government will be consulting on this issue soon. In fact, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships’ House that this consultation will indeed begin tomorrow with a call for evidence. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that all of us in this House care about this issue, in particular, ensuring that our young people have access to opportunities, regardless of their background, whether they can afford to work for free or where they are based in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke powerfully on that basic right and I think that we are all in agreement with the principle.

This amendment, while well-intentioned, risks creating loopholes, where existing workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage from day one could find themselves working for free for up to four weeks. I am sure that we would all agree that this is not right and not what any of us wants to see. Adopting this amendment could well lead to an influx of four-week roles appearing, with only those who can afford to work for free accessing them. We do not want to lock away valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex, which is why I reiterate that it is important that the Government consult on this issue first. To make clear, we are standing by our words in Committee. When we said that we would be starting the consultation “soon”, in this case, that means tomorrow. As I stated in our debate in Committee, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address can be dealt with most effectively outside of this Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 103.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have to hand the number of prosecutions that HMRC has taken under the NMW regulations in this instance? If he does not have that to hand, I would be very happy for him to write.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not have that information to hand. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail. I take the opportunity to point out that the fair work agency that we are creating in this legislation will be responsible for enforcing this aspect of employment rights regulation as well as others. We would expect that work to be taken forward by the fair work agency. I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that detail.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the hour is late, I will not run through them all by name. I am thankful to the Minister for his response. I very much look forward to the consultation tomorrow and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendment 110. What this amendment does is simple but important. It encourages the Secretary of State to ensure that in bringing forward regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, they draw upon existing recognised certifications and industry standards. These standards, developed and refined by responsible actors within the market, offer a ready-made baseline for compliance which the Government can and should use.

There is consensus that regulation of umbrella companies is overdue, but as we take this opportunity, let us ensure that the regulation is done well and in a way that is pragmatic, proportionate and effective. This amendment helps point us in that direction, so I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the Government’s approach to umbrella companies.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling Amendment 110, which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing industry codes and accreditations as a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies.

We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and best practice with their customers and members. The work of these bodies in the umbrella company industry has had some success in driving up standards. However, this success has been fairly limited, and we would not want to assume that an organisation that is a member of an accreditation or trade body is necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe that now is the right time for the Government to step in to protect businesses that already do the right thing and also protect workers.

Many in the umbrella company industry, and those who use umbrella companies, welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field. This includes public positions taken by the Freelancer & Contractor Services Association, Contractor Calculator, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and several other bodies’ responses to the consultation run under the previous Government.

We have been clear since Clause 34 was introduced to the Bill that the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 will be amended to apply to umbrella companies. The Government recognise that the regulations in their current form are not appropriate to regulate the activities of umbrella companies. That is because the regulations predominantly focus on entities providing work-finding services or supplying individuals to end clients, which, generally, umbrella companies do not do. Where umbrella companies do provide such services, they would indeed already be covered under the regulations.

The Government have a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on umbrella companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the Government are keen to get views from trade unions, workers and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector. This will enable the Government to better shape policy development. Following consultation, an appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regulatory regime will be introduced in 2027. Once those regulations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk-led and intelligence-led approach to its compliance regime.

I hope this provides some of the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were seeking, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to withdraw his Amendment 110.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that the consultation is coming in the autumn, and we can only hope that is the early autumn and that following that, perhaps there can be some more pace, and it will not be put out to 2027. We also hope the Minister will consider what happens in the interim for all those businesses currently doing the right thing that are disadvantaged by being in a market where some others are perhaps not operating to the same standards and codes of practice. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.