Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord German

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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord German

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.

--- 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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord German

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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord German

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister to the cut-and-paste threat which has been put upon him. I hope that there is a satisfactory answer that will make me smile. If it does not, then maybe there is a point to be made somewhere.

I echo the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about Amendment 209. It has been a promise to this House from many reports—from legislation committees and from the Constitution Committee—that, where there is a matter of seriousness and public interest, the affirmative process should be used to bring these matters before the House. The current arrangement is for a police constable, authorised by a superintendent, but there is an openness for Ministers to extend these powers. You might say that it does not matter to whom they give the powers and, if anybody feels really upset about it, they could pray against the Motion, which is a very rare thing in this House and in the House of Commons. What it means is that the Government are not prepared to allow that public scrutiny to ensure that they have got the matter right.

It would be a sensible approach to follow the pattern that the Lords committee responsible for these matters has laid before us and to change this from a negative to an affirmative procedure when regulations are brought forward to extend the list of people who will have these powers. I also take note of the interesting comment from my noble friend about who in the Home Office will supervise whom about what access anybody can have. I would like to know a little about the chiefs and the Indians if possible, please.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord German. Amendments 68, 69 and 209 raise important questions about the scope, application and oversight of the powers in the Bill.

I will address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around Clauses 20 to 23 being lifted from the Illegal Migration Act. The noble Lord, Lord German, is smiling already; maybe he anticipates a cracking punchline—but there is not one. It is a simple fact that, clearly, one of the chief intentions of this legislation is to replace the Illegal Migration Act. It was deemed easier in drafting terms to do that and then include certain sections that were deemed worthy of keeping in this Bill, rather than simply have to go back and unpick the Illegal Migration Act in different parts of the Bill. It was felt that this was a cleaner way of doing it. I am not sure if that has made the noble Lord, Lord German, smile; it has not particularly raised a laugh with me, but there we go.

While I recognise the intentions behind each proposal, I will respectfully set out why the Government do not support them. In each case, the current drafting of the Bill is deliberate and proportionate and designed to ensure operational effectiveness, legal clarity and appropriate safeguards.

Amendment 68 seeks to limit Clause 19 by removing what is perceived to be a retrospective effect. I want to be clear that Clause 19(2)(a) does not operate retrospectively in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The powers in the clause come into effect only after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The clause has been carefully drafted to ensure that powers apply regardless of when an individual entered or arrived in the UK before that date.

This is not retrospective legislation. Individuals who entered the UK without leave did so in breach of immigration laws that were already in place at the time of their entry. The clause does not impose a new penalty for past conduct. Instead, it enables the powers to be used from the moment they come into force, provided that the individual still meets the relevant criteria at that time. This approach ensures that the law can respond effectively to ongoing encounters of individuals who have already arrived illegally in the UK and does not create loopholes that could be exploited by those who may look to take advantage of immigration controls.

The amendment, while well intentioned, would narrow the scope of Clause 19(2)(a) and undermine its operational effectiveness. It would create a two-tier system, in effect, treating individuals differently based on the timing of their entry or whether they are subject to a deportation order, and result in missed opportunities to gain valuable information to stop organised immigration crime groups. In summary, the clause as drafted strikes the right balance: it is not retrospective in its legal effect, and it is forward-looking in its application. It ensures that the Government can act decisively to protect the integrity of UK borders and uphold the rule of law.

I turn now to Amendment 69, which proposes to broaden the definition of a “relevant article” to include any article containing information on the commission of an offence under any of the immigration Acts, as defined in Section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007. While I understand the desire to ensure comprehensive coverage of immigration offences, I must respectfully oppose this amendment too.

The current drafting of Clause 19 is deliberately narrow and targeted. It focuses on offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, offences that relate specifically to facilitating unlawful immigration and assisting illegal entry. These are the offences most relevant to the operational intent of this clause: to disrupt organised criminal networks and protect the integrity of our borders. Expanding the definition to include all offences under the immigration Acts risks capturing a wide range of minor or administrative breaches, such as overstaying or failing to comply with conditions, which are not the intended focus of this power. Our concern here is that such a broad approach could undermine the proportionality of the measure and expose it to legal challenge.

Amendment 209 seeks to amend Clause 60 so that regulations made pursuant to Clause 25 are subject to the affirmative procedure, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, and recommended by the Lords Constitution Committee. While we fully respect the committee’s role in scrutinising delegated powers, we respectfully disagree with the necessity of this amendment and the affirmative procedure.

Clause 25 does not create new powers; rather, it allows for the extension of existing powers to a broader cohort of authorised officers. The use of the negative procedure in this context is appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, Clause 25(3) provides an important safeguard that the Secretary of State is required to include such safeguards as they consider necessary. This ensures that any extension of powers is accompanied by appropriate checks and balances. The negative procedure is appropriate for this type of technical and operational regulation, which ensures agility without unduly compromising oversight. Regulations made under the negative procedure are still laid before Parliament and subject to annulment, providing a clear route for scrutiny while avoiding unnecessary delay in operational matters. Conversely, requiring the affirmative procedure in this case would introduce unnecessary delay and complexity into what is a targeted and operationally focused provision that must be able to respond agilely to any challenges. The negative procedure strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical implementation. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.