Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

This is an important debate on an important issue. The case has been made by every speaker so far making detailed points on the policies and the problems that they create. I want to put on record my concern and my support for the comments that have been made by my noble friends and other Members of the House.

Although much of the debate has focused on specific problems and the specifics of the proposal, I think a view should be taken of the proposals as a whole. There are some necessary changes, and we know what they are, but taken as a whole we have to ask ourselves whether this the sort of country we want to be. To me, the answer is no. I just want to make that general point and put it on record.

The second issue—and I think this has come out clearly from the debate, particularly from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—is that the whole process of us being here at 10.10 pm on a Tuesday night with unwhipped business means that this debate has not had the significance that it should have done. It is only those who have strong feelings about this issue who have come. The whole process, the fact that there was no debate in the Commons, and this archaic process we have landed ourselves with—I know it is only from 1971—is totally inappropriate to the task at hand. The review of immigration laws, which is a big political issue in this country, should not have been handled in this way.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not expect that my first point will gain overwhelming sympathy, but the challenge of following the detail of changes in Immigration Rules—it is not particular to this Statement of Changes—about what is in effect, whether there is a discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary and all of that is considerable. The impact on people directly affected, or who believe they are affected, or who are anxious about becoming affected in the future, is also considerable. There can be no doubt about the level of anxiety—our inboxes bear witness to that.

There is also—this is a point that may not gain sympathy—the impact on professionals, as well as on the organisations working in the immigration and refugee fields. It is not just support and assistance for which they are relied on. My guess is that the complexity, indeed the near impenetrability, of the rules current at any given time—to which one adds the decisions of tribunals and the higher courts—is a deterrent to lawyers entering into this area of work, and then of course there are the legal aid rates. All that makes it the more difficult for applicants to access support and representation.

Asylum and Immigration: Children

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness. She will know that the Government have to deal with issues to do with both illegal migration and managed migration. The proposals we are bringing forward are doing that. We are absolutely, 100% committed to doing that within the framework of our United Nations responsibilities and under legislation that both Houses of Parliament have passed previously. I am happy to direct the noble and learned Baroness to the consultation on these proposals, which closes on 12 February.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the impact of these proposals is not only personal to individual children—although, indeed, it is hard to think of a situation more likely to provide adverse childhood experiences than being a refugee or asylum seeker. What assessment has been made of the impact on local authorities: on children’s services, education, leaving care budgets and so on?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the reasons that the Government are looking at the issues of illegal migration and managed migration is to ensure that the United Kingdom is in a position to deal with both those issues in an effective way. The issues of illegal migration and unaccompanied children and managed migration are subject to consultation. One issue in that consultation is how and what support is given to appropriate children, because every child is different and every circumstance is different. The points that the noble Baroness raised are valid, and we are considering them as part of our overall policy.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

It is not that unfair to say that he may not carry on being the Minister for ever; indeed, he may not want to be the Minister for ever. He has another piece of legislation on borders coming very soon. He may say that he is going to publish it but it would be better, I think, if it were in statute so that, whichever Minister or Home Secretary is there, we could be sure that this information was going to be published.

There is a reason for that. As my noble friend said, we had quite a debate about two different aspects of this on Report. The first was about specific data on criminality, while the second—I raised this issue—was about what information Ministers collected to make decisions on student visas. I recollected that, when I was an immigration Minister serving in the Home Office under the leadership of the then Home Secretary—my noble friend Lady May, who is sitting in front of me—it was absolutely the case that the Home Office collected data about the propensity of different nationalities to overstay and the risks that were presented. That information was used in both the information that was sought and the judgments that were made on accepting people to come to the United Kingdom—quite rightly—to make sure that we had robust borders.

As my noble friend suggested, I got a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, after that debate. I had asked two questions. One was about the information collected on the propensity of visa applicants to commit crimes. The second was about risk assessment in student visa decisions; the second one is most pertinent to this debate, of course, but they are linked.

On the first one, the Minister answered the question, but it was not a very good answer, which is why I am a little sceptical about whatever assurances we may hear from the Dispatch Box. He said:

“In accordance with the public sector equality duty, the Government’s policies do not unduly discriminate against people based on their protected characteristics, which includes on the basis of nationality”.


He specifically said:

“The Home Office does not collect data about the propensity of different nationalities to commit crimes”.


So there seems a bit of a gap in the information that is collected. It may be that Ministers will publish information about the numbers of specific individuals, but my question was about whether that information is used to make judgments about whether particular nationalities are more of a risk. That does not mean that you have a blanket ban against people, but it might mean that you ask some more searching questions if particular nationalities are a risk. It sounds as if the Government do not intend to do that at all.

The most worrying thing was the question I asked about whether the Government about what information was collected to do those risk assessments for student visa decisions. Answer came there none in this letter, which was purportedly an answer to my question. The only conclusion one can come to is that the Minister did not want to put down the answer because it would be that no information is collected and there is no risk assessment. There definitely used to be a risk assessment so, if there is not one now, I do not know when it stopped, but that is very much a step backwards. So, for both those reasons, it makes no sense.

What the Minister said in his reply to me—that the Government do not make decisions about people based on their nationality—does not seem to accord with what the Home Secretary announced just last week. She said that the UK would stop granting visas to people from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—that is a blanket ban on every individual from those countries—if their Governments did not start rapidly co-operating on removals. On that issue, I happen to agree with the Home Secretary—I think that is a sensible policy—but it is not consistent with what the Minister said in his letter about not unduly discriminating against people based on their nationality, unless, of course, “unduly” is doing quite a lot of work—perhaps more than it bears—so I am a bit sceptical.

If the Minister stands up and says that he will publish the data, as my noble friend says, I would be much happier if that commitment were put into statute. We need not delay the Bill. We broadly do not think it will make as much positive difference as the Government do, but there is lots in it to be welcomed. I do not want to hold it up, but we need not hold it up at all because the Minister could just accept my noble friend’s amendment and then we would be done. However, if he is not prepared to accept it, I fear we must test the opinion of the House. That will ultimately be up to my noble friend, but, based on the letter that I have had from the Minister, I am certainly not—at this stage, at least—persuaded that we do not need to go a little further.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not imagine that I am the only Member of this House who is very often irritated by a Commons reason in this sort of situation that says, “We don’t agree because we don’t agree”. On this occasion, we have a reasoned reason with which I, for one, certainly do agree: that it is not,

“appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data”.

There is a place for something other than statutory requirements, and I think this is one of them.

I agree with a couple of things that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said. I do not know that anybody ever envies a Minister in the Home Office. More seriously, we have largely been overtaken by the announcements that have come from the Home Office in quite a stream since we started work on this Bill. It has made it very difficult to deal with the Bill.

I also want to talk about the amendment itself. It does not give a context. It could, for instance, have added that there must be the collation and publication of the number of overseas students who—I summarise—have remained in the UK and succeeded in their contribution to the success of the UK. The data referred to suggests no comparator with British citizens, and my real objection to this amendment is that I do not want to appear to assume that criminals are overrepresented in the overseas student cohort or, bluntly, that immigrants include a particularly large number of criminals. The starting point for this amendment makes me deeply uneasy.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 57, to which I have added my name. I too thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for all the help that it has given us. I also support Amendment 27.

For very good reason, and not for the first time, Amendment 57 would introduce statutory safeguards for individuals whose age is disputed. To the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I say: we do not suggest that we should prohibit visual assessments at the border. What Amendment 57 would ensure is that those assessments comply with child protection principles, especially the benefit of the doubt standard established in case law and international guidance. This principle requires that where age is uncertain, the individual should be treated as a child unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. That is the principle which I believe we should stick to.

The amendments align with recommendations by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already said. Crucially, the amendment also addresses the Government’s proposal to use AI-based facial age estimation. I feel that I am a broken record on the subject of facial age estimation, and indeed on age estimation in general. We have had to contend with the proposal to use X-ray systems to determine age, and time after time we have argued that not only is it inaccurate—a point made clearly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—to use teeth or wrists for X-rays but it is unethical to expose people to unnecessary radiation and that X-rays should be used only for the benefit of the people concerned. We are delighted that the present Government are not proposing X-rays among their scientific methods, and we are also immensely grateful to the Minister for having conversations with us on this subject.

However, the AI systems suggested are not foolproof either. Indeed, independent evaluations show that these systems have error margins of between two and four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, and they exhibit demographic bias, which is exactly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said—particularly, it turns out, for younger ages and minority ethnic groups. Academic research confirms that children’s faces are harder to assess accurately and that claims of near-perfect accuracy remain unverified. Overreliance on such technology risks replicating systematic errors rather than fixing them, so we will be replacing human error with machine error.

We all recognise that age assessment is complex and cannot be solved by one measure, but we believe that the Government need to listen to experts and adopt safeguards that make the system safer for children. Amendment 57 offers a practical, rights-based solution. It would preserve operational flexibility at the border, reinforce compliance with children’s legislation, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of technology. I hope the Minister can give us some more details about how the trial of this AI technology will work, and indeed that he can reassure us that it will not be relied on unless it is truly accurate—but it looks as if we are a long way from that.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was too late to put my name down to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am sure she will understand that the points that have been made on the second amendment in this group largely apply to hers as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, tells us that adults game the system. I agree, but safeguarding applies both ways, both if someone is assessed as a child when he is an adult—it is usually a he—and if he is assessed as an adult when in fact he is a child. The question that we have is: where do you start from? How do you approach this: that claimants are fraudulent, or that claimants should be believed until the contrary is shown—the benefit of the doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said? Where is the greatest danger? It will be obvious from my signature to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, where I believe it is.

I think, too—I will accuse myself of this; I do not want to accuse others of it—that there is a cultural bias. I say that even though I have a lot of Middle Eastern blood in me, so I should not be as biased as someone who is an ancient Briton, but I have detected it in myself.

I accept that this is a hugely difficult area and that technology is advancing almost as fast as we can draft amendments, which makes it all the more difficult. I am sure it has advanced a long way since the time I was stopped at the Gare du Nord because I seemed not to be the same as the person shown in the photograph in my passport because I was wearing earrings, which meant that the distance between my ears was not the real one.

I asked a couple of Questions for Written Answer recently. On the first one I got generalised assurance, so I asked some very specific questions, which inevitably got an Answer about the Home Office providing further updates regarding testing “in due course”. In a way, the thrust of my question today is to ask the Minister how and when Parliament is to be updated on what is going on—not just Parliament but all the stakeholders. It is not word I particularly like but it describes the variety of people concerned with this.

The Answer to my Question of 6 October included:

“If and when this technology is used in live cases, full information and guidance will be available to those undergoing”


facial age estimation

“as well as to staff involved in the process”.


That suggests that the Home Office will stay in its silo looking at the issues and at the process, without involving all those stakeholders who need to be included—social workers, for instance. In the case of the second amendment it is social workers in local authorities, because it the local authorities that have to carry the can and look after children under 18.

I accept that the figures reported on GOV.UK are only up to quarter 2 of 2024, so I am making the point as a general one for all of us and not accusing the Government of anything, but they show that in three of the quarters the issue was resolved with the claimant being over 18. In fact, the numbers show that there was very little difference between those under and those over 18 in the particular quarters, but in the other five quarters considerably more were found to be less than 18, including 240 at less than 18 compared to 18 plus, 744 at less than 18—I am fudging my figures. I do not mean to fudge them; I am just making a mess off them because I have not written them out properly. But the differences in the numbers at less than 18 were considerably more than those found to be over 18.

The inspector made a number of recommendations. The formal response is that the Government have accepted them all. That is then followed by an explanation which, again, does not seem to be as precise as I, for one, would like it to be. I hope, in particular, where the Home Office has said in response to the inspector that the date of implementation will be December 2025—next month—that the Minister will agree to report on those various points very soon, perhaps in February, because December is not very far away. If things are going to happen in December, and I can see he is checking this, it would be very helpful for the House to know that a system is in place for reporting on what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly set out why I do not think this is a particularly helpful amendment, which I am sure the noble Baroness is not entirely surprised to hear. Despite what she said, I am not sure the amendment is entirely intended to be helpful.

This is an area in which there is a balance to strike. The noble Baroness is quite right that the Illegal Migration Act shifted the balance—a little—in favour of the Home Secretary; the balance had drifted too far in the other direction. I strongly support the need for some limits and constraint on the ability of the Home Secretary to use detention powers, but if you are not careful, those who try to frustrate the system inappropriately—people who have no right to be here—will use the rules to frustrate an attempt legitimately to remove them from the country.

I saw many cases of people who had no right to be in the United Kingdom, and who had failed on a number of occasions to stay here through the legal processes, using this as another tool. If you have strict, bright-line rules, the danger is that people game and frustrate the system. The Home Secretary does not want to detain more people than is absolutely necessary; there is a very significant cost in doing so. As she well knows, the Home Office does not have an unlimited budget, but it is necessary to have these powers.

Certainly, the powers that were in place before the provision the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is trying to repeal needed strengthening. As I said, this moves things in the direction of the Home Secretary, but as with all the Home Secretary’s powers, she has to exercise them in a reasonable and lawful manner, and all the decisions she takes are challengeable by judicial review.

The Illegal Migration Act still refers to whether the detention is “reasonably necessary”. It still has that test, so the Home Secretary has to exercise that judgment. If somebody feels that the Home Secretary has got that judgment wrong, it is still open to them to challenge it. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the balance has shifted in favour of the Home Secretary.

I come back to what I said in the earlier group: there is a balance to strike here. Much of the debate so far is coming from one particular angle. I do not criticise the noble Baroness for doing it, but the other side of the argument needs to be put, so the House can hear a more balanced argument. We need a firm system which allows people to come to and stay in the United Kingdom if they are following our rules or have a legitimate asylum claim; equally importantly, where they do not, they should not be able to use rules and regulations that are there to protect people, in order to frustrate the legitimate exercise of that power.

To all those who want an asylum system, or one that allows people to come here legitimately, I urge them to be careful what they wish for, because we are getting to the point where the public are losing patience. Ministers are ultimately accountable both to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, but if the public do not feel that Ministers are accountable, or if they feel that they do not have the powers to deliver a system the public want to see, public belief and confidence in the system will disappear, and that would be very dangerous. Those who want a more liberal system would rue the day that that happened.

Therefore, having that balance is necessary. The changes made in the Illegal Migration Act to the powers on detention moved in the right direction. The fact that the Government, despite doing a pretty wholesale removal of the powers in that Act, have not removed this one suggests that Ministers think that shift in the balance was sensible. I therefore hope that it remains in place. Regretfully, if the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I will not be able to support it. I hope she understands why, and I suspect it will not be a surprise to her to learn that I am unable to support it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we should of course be aware of public feeling, but we should also not inflame it. We need to be careful with that. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to leave out Clause 41(17), which states that the amendments made by most of the subsections in that clause

“are to be treated as always having had effect”.

We should be very wary of the retrospectivity contained in them. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is about to finalise, I hope, a report on the rule of law, and we point to retrospectivity, or retroactivity—I am never sure whether there is a difference—as threatening the rule of law, along with legal certainty and so on. I am therefore glad that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just a brief intervention from us on this matter, which was raised in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for telling me what reasons he had for not taking out Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. It raises some further questions, which I guess the Minister might have been expecting. Essentially, the noble Baroness’s amendments aim collectively to inject greater protection of civil liberties and to ensure proportionality in the use of detention powers, and they demand clarity regarding the mental element required for the new immigration offences in the Bill.

In his letter to me, the Minister said of Section 12 that

“policies to differentiate in line with the provision can be resumed if required”.

He said that they

“are not currently in use”,

and they have not been in use since this Government took office. He said:

“This Government is prioritising steps to restore order to the asylum system”,


et cetera, as one might expect. But, he continued:

“While the Government reviews the approach, it would not be appropriate to remove these provisions from the statute book”.


Can the Minister tell me what review of what approach will determine whether this provision should be removed, and whether, in the immediate future, there is any intention to recommence Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act?

In conclusion, having some clarity on this matter would be useful. The Law Society, as noble Lords might expect, says that the retention of Section 12, by removing the

“court’s ability to decide for itself whether the detention of a person for the purposes of removal is for a reasonable period”,

risks increasing unlawful and prolonged detention. There is currently a legal aspect to retention; I know that it is not being used, but we need to ensure that the fallback described by the Law Society is in place. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

29: Clause 38, page 32, line 22, leave out “28” and insert “29”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I also have Amendments 69 and 79B in this group, which includes Amendments 29A and 31A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Amendment 29 would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force.

Section 29, if enforced, would broaden the public order disqualification to mandate—because “may” becomes “must”—that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection, identification and support; are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK; and may be removed from the UK, unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I say “broaden” because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low-level offences, which takes us into the territory of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate—if not in its own terms, though there is some consensus around that, in that the offenses which are excluded are too few and it does not exclude some that are not so serious.

The clause provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it is also inadequate in the awareness of the clause, and therefore whether it should be brought into consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum seekers commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would

“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.

I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point and the Government responded, saying that this section would, if commenced, bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. I again emphasise those two words because it is not mandatory only if there are “compelling circumstances”, which is a difficult phrase—difficult ever to prove.

Amendments 69 and 79B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused or exploited people are involved. They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation; it applies also to other people—their colleagues—who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, although I do not resile from it.

We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 Act, if that was the right occasion. We have had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which included both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the Minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion. However, the passage of time has not changed the issue, even though we may look—certainly I do—rather different from how I did in that photograph. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about tackling organised immigration crime. He used the term “turbocharge”, and I have already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I have searched for a sort of equivalent terminology and all I have come up with is “not steamrollering them”.

The Minister referred to the NRM—the national referral mechanism—providing

“a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1486.]

The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. He said also:

“In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan”—


that is, the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers—

“and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1484.]

I did word searches on the White Paper and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I will return to all that in Amendment 44, probably on the next day of Committee—although, of course, if there has been any reconsideration to date, I would be happy to hear it. I could not find “Kalayaan”. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but, if it is there, perhaps I could be directed to it following the debate.

The most important point is that the Government recognise that there is a genuine concern around here and intend to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information or news that the Minister can give the House today would be welcome.

The two other amendments in this group would retain Sections 22, 23, and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act; in other words, they would bring in Section 29, to which I have spoken, and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. They raise the question about how the noble Baroness considers we should treat victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM. I beg leave to move Amendment 29.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendments 29A and 31A would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern slavery clauses and provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The net effect of them would mean that individuals who have entered illegally would not be able to use modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal, but it is important that we continue to support genuine victims at the same time. The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, while they were necessary back in 2023 when this Act was passed, the need for them has become even more pressing now.

I declare an interest as a former Home Office Minister who led on the modern slavery support system and has seen the challenges of operationalising this system and protecting victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do.

The world has changed. Since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we built, for very good reasons, over a decade ago is now being stretched, and in some cases exploited in ways Parliament never intended. In particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all over the world, rather than for our own citizens who have been trafficked and abused. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.

In 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK, at 43%. This concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary who said, in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one-in, one-out asylum-seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France, that some asylum seekers were making “vexatious, last-minute claims” of being victims of modern slavery to block removal. The Home Secretary and the Government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That is the fastest way to tackle this, if they can perhaps get over the “not invented here” objection.

When we have these debates, those who do the important work of supporting victims will claim and state, rightly, that it is impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused. I agree with that, which is why I have tabled amendments later on to address that point. But, whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we have seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. The people who are being referred now are non-UK nationals: the largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. For context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2,500 referrals, yet last year it handled nearly 2,500 referrals just from Albania. This surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course also on taxpayers and on the public purse, because the Government have committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system.

In the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act that my amendment seeks to retain, my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, speaking for the then Government, said:

“It is a central tenet of the Bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in Clause 2 will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom. It is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom. Whereas in 2019 just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%”.”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1784.]


Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. I follow my noble friend Lord Harper in asking this House to be honest that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low. These amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling me an expert on modern slavery matters. I dealt with the Bill 10 years ago, and a lot of swimming around the goldfish bowl has been undertaken since then. We should recognise the importance of that Act in establishing basic criteria, which the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, brought forward, and which I, as the then shadow Minister, supported and tried to stretch even further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, continues to remind me.

The key thing about the point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is what I referred to in opening: a case-by-case basis. The Act, if commenced, would amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for deportation, but on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from the modern slavery protections on public order grounds. It is important that we do not have a blanket dismissal but do have the potential for the national referral mechanism, the Home Secretary and others to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He shakes his head to say that it does not, but sometimes I cannot satisfy every Member of this House. I say to him simply that the case-by-case basis means that if someone wants to make the case that they should not be covered by this, the opportunity is there for them to do so. I therefore beg that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to the reporting restrictions, as in two of the amendments in this group, I say again that it is a matter of how those affected perceive the situation, because that affects their behaviour. With regard to Amendment 29, of course, the provision has still not been brought into force. I wish the Home Office had the courage of its convictions and got rid of it.

If we are being told, as I think we are, that the subject of modern slavery, protection for victims and so on may come before us in some new form, and is certainly being considered, that would be the point at which to bring in some of what is in Section 29 if that was thought to be appropriate—some but not all of it, perhaps. I can hope only that it remains not brought into force. I do not think that is a very good way to deal with legislation, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I will raise two points. I very much support someone who has an order of deportation being removed, as I suspect the whole House does. However, Amendment 34 is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested, for somebody who has a prison sentence; it applies to anyone who has been convicted of an offence. Does that mean that if somebody is convicted of careless driving, they are actually to be deported? On reading Amendment 34(2), that is exactly what it appears to mean. That seems to me a trifle extreme.

Secondly, although I recognise that deportation to a safe country that is prepared to take the person back is one thing, where, I wonder, does the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, intend that people who have come from unsafe countries should go to? What concerns me is that when someone from Afghanistan, Syria at the moment, Darfur or Iran, commits an offence, it is unlikely that they could be sent back there. Therefore, where, according to the wording of this amendment, should these people go?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, would the noble and learned Baroness agree that it could also be described as extreme that, as per Amendment 72, a deportation order would not be subject to appeal under the two Acts cited, or any other enactment, and that:

“A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court”?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support both these amendments. It is sensible that we set a presumption that those who are here effectively as our guests have to follow the rules. Insisting that they be deported if they commit crimes strikes me as very sensible. Putting it in statute is important. We have done this before in the past, when we were having problems with courts interpreting very broadly some of the human rights legislation around people’s right to a family life. We made some clear rules and put them in primary legislation in the Immigration Act 2014, and that largely—not entirely—dealt with those problems. There was a rule in there that if you were given a prison sentence of a certain length, you had to be deported. This is a logical extension of that. It would strengthen the Government’s hand in a number of the cases that my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron set out, where Ministers sound as frustrated as the rest of us that they are not able to deport people, or, if they are, only after a very lengthy legal process.

To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about challenging the deportation, my noble friend’s amendment is drafted as such because the person concerned would have had the opportunity under the criminal law to challenge his sentence if there was some issue with the legal case, but, having been convicted of the criminal offence concerned, it should follow that they are then deported. You should not get a second bite of the cherry to have, in effect, another appeal when you have already had the chance to appeal against the sentence in the first place.

The other benefit of these amendments is that, although initially they would indeed be challenging for the Government for the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out, including around where you can send people back to, the proposal would force the Government to do two things. First, it would force them to engage with some of the countries where returning people is more challenging. You can do that by sending people back before they finish serving their sentence—you have a prisoner transfer agreement, where they can go back to their home country and continue serving the sentence in that country, before their release from prison. That is the preferable outcome, where they still have a measure of justice.

The second thing the proposal would do is force the Government to confront the cases that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out. I accept that they are challenging, but it cannot be right that, because somebody is from a certain country, they can come to the United Kingdom, commit any level of criminality and, once they have finished their prison sentence, we cannot get rid of them.

We should force the Government to confront two tests. The first is to ask whether someone who comes from a country that we do not deem safe should forfeit the right to not be sent back to it by their conduct.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 are ones that I support, and he will remember my defence of them in Committee. During our Committee proceedings, I raised two important issues relating to what I consider to be gaps in these two new offences.

The first was the omission of “possession with intent to supply” from the offence of supplying an article for use in immigration crime. My argument here is that the possession of sufficient quantities of such an article is not an innocent act; it is a precursor to the commission of the offence. By failing to criminalise the preparatory acts, I feared that we would not be including within the offence everyone that we wish to capture.

The second gap I identified is that the offence in Clause 14 does not include a person who arranges for two third parties to exchange articles for use in immigration crime. Once again, this is an essential preparatory act whereby one person is facilitating the exchange of goods that will later be used in the commission of the new offence. The problem here is that we know that organised crime gangs are always concocting ever more ingenious methods of circumventing the law, often by removing themselves from the criminal acts and organising exchanges.

In this regard, I am very pleased that the Government have listened and tabled Amendments 4 and 8. It is genuinely welcome that they have listened to the concerns that I raised in Committee, taken those suggestions away and come back to this House with a solution.

The Minister’s amendments would create two further offences within Clauses 13 and 14; in effect, by expanding their reach. Included within the scope of these offences is a person who is concerned in the supplying or the receiving of an article. The second aspect of these new offences is that the person has to know that the relevant article is to be used in connection with an offence, under the relevant sections in the Immigration Act 1971. It is my understanding that those two aspects of the new offences in Amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the Government, would cover possession with intent to supply and the arranging of the exchange of an article between two third parties. I ask the Minister to give me his cast-iron assurance that the Government’s amendments include the gaps that I have identified. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I start from the position of being very unhappy with Clause 13 in any event. The term “intent” in Amendment 3 is certainly familiar, but it is really quite hard to prove. We should not be in the business of creating offences where it would not generally be realistic to prosecute.

On government Amendments 4 and 8, the term “concerned” is very broad. I think it is used in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; I do not know how that came into my mind, but I found it. In any event, it is so broad as to be questionable. This clause would criminalise people and, as we said many times in Committee, we see a danger of criminalising asylum seekers by regarding them as doing things that we do not want smugglers to do. We do not want smugglers, but we are sweeping them up in that net.

I have rather the same point about new subsection (1A)(b) in Amendment 4 and the term “in connection with”, which again is very wide. Surely the criminal law covers being an accessory, aiding and abetting, and so on, so I am also concerned about that.

Amendment 6 includes the term “arranges”. How is this not covered by Clause 14(1)(c), which uses the term “assists”?

Overall, we are concerned about the breadth of these amendments. The extension of the offences concerns us—if I can use that word without punning—in any event.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

7: Clause 14, page 8, line 10, leave out “by P or another person” and insert “by a person other than P or a member of P’s immediate family”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before we get going on Amendment 7, I want to comment on government Amendments 10 and 11. I thank the Minister for responding not only to the amendments in Committee but to my request for a meeting, and holding that meeting during a week when he had so many—I think he can barely have had time to breathe. It was extremely pleasing to be able to pursue a matter on which we both understood what we were aiming for, even though we could not quite find the words in Committee.

My amendment then was about hygiene kits. From the slightly delicate terminology used by some noble Lords in Committee, I think we had different ideas in our minds. I understand that the Government’s approach to items to assist with cleanliness and hygiene is to take care not to enable items that could be weaponised; hence the different approach to this, which I think is quite ingenious. However, I am left with a question and a bit of a concern about shaving items. I could not come up with an alternative way of expressing it, which would have met the Government’s point, but underlying my concern at the last stage was allowing asylum seekers in a very difficult situation a degree of dignity.

I confess that I asked the Red Cross, from which I received a list of the items that it normally supplies to refugees, and it could not come up with an alternative way of expressing it. I have its crisis and emergency response team’s list, which includes razors and shaving lubricant, while the standard hygiene items that the Red Cross Hackney destitution centre gives out include shaving kits. However, we are where we are. Unless the Minister has anything more that he can explain to me in responding, I want to put my thanks on record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 7, and I shall speak to it in a moment. First, I shall speak to Amendments 10 and 11 in my name. I hope, for all the difficulties about some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord German, has raised in relation to shaving, it is an attempt by the Government to meet the objectives of the noble Baroness’s original amendment in Committee as well as the report on the Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised this as a matter of some importance.

I reflected on it after Committee and asked officials to draw up amendments, and amendments have been drawn up that allow essential items such as soap, tooth- paste and sanitary products to be used. Amendment 11 is there because there are things such as razor blades, or things such as a glass container that could be broken and be available as a weapon, and things such as aerosol cans that can be sprayed in people’s faces, which have to be exempted.

I confess that the question of shaving is one that might be worthy of further reflection and discussion, but we are where we are. This is not a pejorative statement, but some people who arrive will have beards; the ones who do not can wash with soap, use toothpaste and do all those things. Potentially, at some point, they can shave in a more controlled circumstance at a later date. Let us just reflect on that. It is an interesting point for debate but, ultimately, we have tried to settle on a reasonable compromise to meet the objectives of the Committee’s pressure on the Government and the Joint Committee report. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as they stand.

I have more difficulty with the noble Baroness’s Amendments 7 and 12. I appreciate that the intent of Amendment 12 is to safeguard legitimate legal professionals. I stress that the clause already provides a “reasonable excuse” defence, as she knows. The amendment, by explicitly referencing Section 12(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, on the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Davies—narrows that defence rather than strengthening it.

Clause 16 is designed to target those who collect sensitive information for the purpose of facilitating immigration crime. It is not in any way, shape or form aimed at those who want to provide bona fide legal advice who are acting within the law. The offences will be intelligence-led and focused on organised criminal activity, not on those providing lawful counsel. For legal advisers to fall into scope of this clause, they would have to be, for example, gathering or providing information or advice to clients on how to make a clandestine crossing to the UK. That is not what legal advice is supposed to be in this circumstance. For once, I find myself in compadre with the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Harper, on that point, and I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.

Amendment 7, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to exclude from liability those who handle articles likely to be used in immigration crime, if the intended user is themselves or a member of their immediate family. If I wanted to help to support somebody, I might well claim that I am a member of the immediate family and have an immediate family member supplying me with information—and there might well be organised criminal gangs which exploit family ties by pressure or other means to ensure that they mask that facilitation.

Clause 14 already requires that the article is “likely to be used in the course of immigration crime”. This threshold ensures that only those knowingly contributing to criminal activity are captured. I reassure the noble Baroness that I have been clear throughout the Bill’s progress that this House has a reasonable excuse on the face of the Bill, which is non exhaustive. Given the intention of this offence, and while respecting that the decision to prosecute is made entirely independently of government, I would expect that it would not generally be an operational or public interest matter to pursue people handling items in genuine pursuit of asylum or on behalf of family members. The CPS or any other legal entity that wishes to examine this matter would look at the intent behind the clause. The reasonable defence we have in Clause 14 is one I would refer the noble Baroness to and would hope to have her support on.

The law must remain clear and enforceable. The current drafting provides flexibility and discretion without compromising the clause’s intent. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will both withdraw Amendment 7 and not move Amendment 12 when it is reached. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as meeting the objectives the House ordered me to look at—in a nice, friendly way—in Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to go over points that have already been made and which were made in Committee at greater length. However, I think it notable that work done by lawyers cannot, in the Government’s mind, be explicitly referred to. Perhaps I am particularly influenced by the work the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is doing on the rule of law, or maybe not.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that a lawyer should not set out—I am paraphrasing—to support a criminal activity by his client. I do not think things are that black and white. Everyone is entitled to a defence. With items such as the documents and information referred to in Clause 16, the client is entitled to have the reason for having those argued, or to argue whether they fall within Clause 16(1). It is a case of blame the lawyers again—“let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is a point of considerable principle to me that the rule of law should be upheld, and that includes citizens being entitled to be supported by lawyers. However, I beg leave to withdraw—

[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.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I also commend the Government on bringing forward this suite of amendments. My remarks will follow and parallel quite closely those of my noble friend Lord Harper.

This is a very difficult area of the law. Social media and the internet are very fast-evolving and extremely difficult to define. So the approach that the Government have taken recognises that this is essentially criminals advertising criminal services—theirs over the next gang’s—and it ought to be addressed. We ought to focus on it, for two reasons. The first is to try to tackle the individuals and organisations behind these activities. The second is to try to get them taken down as soon as possible. We know that is extremely tough to achieve—we have seen it in other pieces of legislation—but that does not mean that we should not try. I certainly think we should.

I am also with my noble friend Lord Harper on his applying a modicum of pressure on the Government by asking how effective they believe these provisions would be. When I asked that very question on a previous amendment, I was given an answer which essentially said, “Well, even if they save one crime, that’s good enough”. The Government should really come forward with a slightly more comprehensive argument. Although, on this suite of amendments, I am less bothered by that, because it is perfectly obvious that what we are talking about here is a large-scale, international, very sophisticated criminal enterprise.

One of the things we have not talked about that much in the House during the passage of this important Bill is the fact that people coming here through these means are very often paying very considerable sums of money indeed: these are not trivial sums. We tend to lump people into groups or buckets and forget that they are often making a very conscious choice, looking at the price and the chance of being either diverted or sent back when they arrive in the UK. From the information that the Minister provided to me by way of a letter, we know that the chances of being removed are around 4%— there is a 96% chance of being successful in remaining—so we have a huge prize for people who wish to come to the country through illegal means and we need to do everything possible to disrupt that. So I hope the Government have got more or less the right approach and I wish them every good fortune in the effectiveness of those amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount has just referred to illegal means, so let me just get into Hansard “safe routes”, if they are needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, presents a very intriguing scenario. If he or I went on to the internet to look up information about any of these issues, would we find an algorithm identifying us as being interested and trying to push unwanted information at us, in rather the same way as, if you buy a lawn-mower, algorithms seem to think that you might want to buy further lawn-mowers, and so on? I had not really thought of that, but I take the point.

On Amendment 14, perhaps I can ask the Minister a couple of questions. New subsection (2)(a) uses the terms “automatic, intermediate and transient”. In the next subsection, the words are “automatic, intermediate and temporary”. Are they different? If they are not different, why is the same term not used?

On Amendment 13, on the underlying offence, it is a very broad offence with a very narrow defence. Of course, I understand why the Government are looking at this. I do not suppose there is any way of not being left with a feeling that, in this area, one is always playing catch-up. I said it is a “broad offence” because

“the person knows or has reason to suspect”.

That is pretty difficult. It is certainly something that might be the case without reaching “recklessness”, for instance. It is another of these offences where there is a defence to prove the purposes of your action. I do not know what the standard of proof is for that. The purposes referred to include work as a journalist, which is not just carrying out work but facilitating it, and the publication of academic research. Why is “facilitating research” not included as well, replicating the first paragraph?

It has been put to me that the proposed offence will place a real burden on small organisations, which will have continuously to investigate the activities of their staff and members to ensure that, through the organisation, material is not posted online that might be construed as having the effect of promoting these services—I am sure that would be a dismissible offence, but even so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 62 was also tabled in Committee. Its intent is to disapply data protection laws and regulations for a data subject who has entered the UK illegally or who is a foreign national offender.

The purpose here is, in essence, the same as in Clauses 27 to 31: it is intended to reduce the barriers to data sharing between the relevant law enforcement and immigration services. We feel that data protection legislation should not stand in the way of our ability to protect our borders; it should act as a block on action, not as a shield behind which those who have committed immigration offences can hide. In the same manner as human rights legislation, data protection legislation is not meant to be used to protect those who have broken the law, who have entered illegally or who are trying to prevent their lawful deportation. I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division, obviously, but I hope the Minister has listened to what I have to say.

I understand the purpose of the government amendments in this group, which are removing provisions that are now redundant due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As such, I take no issue with them.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister use the phrases “vulnerable group” and “blanket fashion”. I think I have quoted him more or less correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to alter the Data Protection Act by creating the possibility of the Secretary of State making an immigration exception decision. The noble Lord would take out of the list of circumstances to which the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard all the rights and freedoms of the data subject, including the subject’s convention rights, and the UK’s obligations under the refugee and trafficking conventions. We are not on the same page.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and, again, think we are on the same page on this point. As I have indicated already, the key thing about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is that it would disapply data protection rules in, as I was quoted, a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the victims of trafficking. Therefore, it is too wide, and I ask him not to move it.

However, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the changes in these technical amendments to the legislation, which needs updating since it began its passage in the House of Commons some time ago. I beg to move Amendment 23.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage & Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was happy to add my name to the noble Lord’s. He explained the position very thoroughly.

It is worth me repeating that the number of children—which is perhaps increasing, as the noble Lord said—is necessarily limited, when discussing children born between the deprivation order and the outcome of an appeal or the expiry of an appeal period. Nevertheless, the risks to such children may be considerable. The fact that only a small number of children may be affected does not affect the importance of the amendment, although I appreciate that, to some people, it may suggest that the problem is less serious than the noble Lord and I regard it.

I do not need to repeat what the noble Lord said, but that is not to say that I do not look forward to hearing speeches and support from other noble Lords in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendment and for their contributions to today’s debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who has previously raised this issue with me in private meetings. I was pleased to meet the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who tabled the amendment to discuss their concerns privately; it is an important issue that I hope I can address today. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Lister; as the regular recipient of terrier activity on my legs, I appreciate her persistence in these matters.

I want to be clear—this is an important point that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, made in his introductory remarks—that where a child already holds British citizenship, the subsequent deprivation of a parent’s citizenship does not change that. I know that that was a concern held by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, but that is a given. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said in his introductory remarks, we would need to make changes to sections of the British Nationality Act 1981 that relate to the acquisition of nationality in order for the amendment to have its desired effect. Whether or not we want to make those changes, they would be out of the Bill’s scope, so I am unable to agree to them today.

In any case, the amendment could not be limited to cases where the parent’s appeal is ultimately successful and their citizenship reinstated. The amendment would apply to cases where a higher court upholds the Home Secretary’s decision. In my view, that would undermine the integrity of the immigration and nationality system and could give rise to cases where a child is temporarily a British citizen, only to lose that status through no fault of their own. If their entitlement to another nationality were to be removed because another country had laws that prohibited dual citizenship, there is also a risk the child could be left stateless.

In accordance with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, consideration of a child’s best interests is a primary consideration in the immigration and nationality decisions that affect them. Considering the representations I have had from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I say to them that the Government will monitor the impact of the Bill, including the impact on children, during the course of its implementation downstream. If there are lessons to be drawn from that, obviously we will do so.

As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading last week, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, under the UK Borders Act 2007, can assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the migration and borders system, which includes the deprivation power. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I say that, if there were a challenge in expediting appeals or an issue with children being impacted, I have no doubt—without wishing to assess the independent inspector’s programme for him—that the inspector would examine those matters. The UK Borders Act 2007 empowers the inspector to define their own inspection programme, something that the departing inspector, David Bolt, refers to in his most recent annual report as

“the cornerstone of the role’s independence”.

I have no doubt that, in the event of challenges appearing—and with representations from noble Lords, Members of Parliament or voluntary organisations—that could well be an area where the inspector focuses their attention.

I thank the noble Lord and noble Baroness for prompting this worthwhile debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has not spoken today, but I believe that he broadly supports the position that I take on this matter. I trust that, for the reasons I have set out, the Members who tabled the amendment understand why the Government cannot support it. I therefore respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am not seeking to challenge the Minister on this, but his statement that changing the 1981 Act would be outside the scope of this Bill is surprising. I am sure that he would not want to send people down into culs-de-sac chasing that claim. It might therefore be helpful if he could make it clear that the technical issue is not what underlies the Government’s opposition to our amendment, so that people understand that this is a policy matter, not a technical matter.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I place that in the mix because it is outside the scope the Bill. I affirm, as I hope I have already done, that the Government’s policy position is that this would be unworkable and would lead to potential areas of risk. Having said that, as I said to the noble Lord in response to his introductory comments, we will keep this under review and monitor it. If issues arise, they will no doubt be drawn to the Government’s attention, the borders inspector can examine them and, indeed, the Government can reflect upon them. On policy grounds, I still urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in introducing a Bill described as challengingly broad. It is not easy, however, to identify an overarching theme, so I shall speak rather generally about children who are the subject—or, if you like, object—of much of the Bill.

I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London. We—not me; I pay tribute to the professionals in the organisation—work with young Londoners and families caught in cycles of violence, exploitation and trauma. We help them escape harm, heal, rebuild and believe in brighter futures. That may sound naive and flowery, but it is hard-headed and hard work.

An effective response is often rooted in safeguarding, not the imposition of punishment. Young people caught up in child criminal exploitation, for instance, are frequently significantly affected by trauma—seriously adverse childhood experiences—before this happens. Alongside this, Safer London is finding that about a third of its clients are neurodiverse or have special educational needs. Allowing for those undiagnosed, this may actually mean about 50%.

So many are so vulnerable. Grooming often involves quite small gifts—so called—followed by, “Now you owe me, and if you do not do as I say, you will see what is coming to your sister”; a sort of debt bondage. It takes skill to work alongside, advocate for and help a young person effect change, to see beyond behaviour to what leads them to where they end up or are in danger of ending up. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me mention resources. When support services have lost funding, anti-social behaviour has increased. The first inquiry of the House’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee three years ago looked at alternatives to short custodial sentences and heard a lot about the need for more investment in treatment as the response to crime. This applies to children as well as adults. It is hard for a child with a criminal record to find employment when they need an economic future outside criminality. On top of this, I am told there is a racial element as black children do not get diversionary sentencing to the same degree as others.

Of course, this skates the surface and I share the frustration of other noble Lords this afternoon. I may express through amendments concerns about polygraphs and whether there are gaps in the mandatory reporting provisions. Those are just for instances. On a different, broad point, how much new law are we loading on the police, who have to prioritise and get their heads around the detail of new offences, when, as other noble Lords have said, an activity has been covered by an old law? But I recognise that sometimes we do need to update, as with cuckooing, which I welcome specifically, and with the late addition of halting the criminalisation of women in England and Wales under abortion law dating back to 1861 to bring us into line with changes that noble Lords across the House—and I have been reminded I was among them—voted into Northern Ireland law in 2019.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive a Front-Bench speech from the second Bench: it is for practical reasons and not out of disrespect. I knew that a one-clause Bill would not defeat the House in its determination to make varied, well-informed forensic points. For me, the phrase “deprivation of citizenship” brings back memories of my noble friend Lord Avebury—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is grinning. Eric was so forceful and so clear about statelessness not being used as a punishment. I have often thought of him as a role model to whom I have not been able to live up.

As we saw a couple of years ago with Bangladesh, our Government’s views about a person’s citizenship do not always, as a matter of practice, align with those of the other state involved. Of course, many argued at the time of the Begum appeal judgment that two-tiered citizenship had been created, downgrading citizenship for naturalised citizens and the children of immigrants.

I have to say that I am one of those who is troubled by the phrase “conducive to the public good”. It is not for us today, as the Minister reminded us at the start of the debate, to try to open up the 1981 Act, but the term requires a value judgment. It is capable of varying and wide interpretations, and it sets a low bar, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described it. At one point during his speech he used the term “hard cases”. I was not sure whether we were being asked to think about bad law following on from that. Why not “threat to national security”? Indeed, Minister Jarvis in the Commons really seemed to use the terms interchangeably.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that we might be able to look at some change during the course of the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill is actually very short and very unhelpful in that sense, stating that the Bill is

“to make provision about the effect, during an appeal, of an order under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981”.

I look forward to the noble Lord’s ingenuity in seeking to build on that.

Whatever the ground, as has been said, it is not only the subject of the order who is affected, and the consequences for a child may be extreme, as we know from recent and current history. The APPG on Trafficked Britons in Syria, of which I am a member, has pointed out the risks of statelessness and the concomitant risks of exploitation and extreme ill-treatment, so let us not lose sight of the best interests of the child.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of specific questions—I have seen the Minister’s reply—one of which was about the national security point that I have made. The letter also argues against SIAC having powers to suspend the effect of a successful appeal. Not quite all cases, I think, are security matters—or perhaps they are. It seems to me that “conducive to the public good” might extend that. One of my concerns is about it being a little unclear. There should be consistent mechanisms for managing all cases. The JCHR also asked about expediting appeals and the Government have told us that determinations are for the democratically accountable Secretary of State. I do not think the JCHR was actually challenging that.

I have seen a paper prepared by ILPA, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, regarding seeking a stay while an appeal is pending or still possible and pointing out a number of procedural matters that I would have thought could be overcome. I assume that the Home Office has seen the briefing. If not, I wonder whether I might send it to the Minister. It raises points that are pretty technical, I think, and perhaps not appropriate for the subject of this debate. But, if I send it to the Minister, perhaps he could consider responding to it, via me if that is appropriate. It is not aggressive; it is pointing out problems.

Like other noble Lords, I thought that the Malthouse amendment had much to recommend it in the Commons. Kit Malthouse said that he hoped that the Minister would do the right thing. Well, if they could not, let us do so.

The Government maintain the position, not just in this situation, that it is possible, practicable and not disadvantageous to exercise legal rights from outside the UK. When I was in practice as a solicitor, from time to time I found it difficult enough to get a coherent picture from some clients with whom I was face to face—never this sort of situation. It takes time, trust, patience, skill and, of course, access, particularly with a person who has undergone, perhaps over a long period, some extreme experiences. Like others, I feel that our system, which operates on the basis that if a relevant court makes a finding in favour of an individual, that stands, unless it is stayed, until it is overturned, is the way we should continue to do things.

I have been told that the Home Secretary’s powers are used almost exclusively against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who hold or are perceived to hold dual nationality. I can see how that could come about. The Minister might like to comment on that because, in the current highly charged political atmosphere, we should be as clear as possible about the facts.

Apart from one point that strikes me as a very good basis for a possible amendment in Committee—my noble friend does not know this yet, because I did not know he was going to make the point, but we will discuss it afterwards—I remain with the basic principles: that no one should be made stateless; that the state’s response to allegations of threats to national security should be tried in the UK unless there are very good reasons to do otherwise; and that the best interests of the child are a priority. I use the term “a priority” as that is what is in other legislation; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about that—and it would be a great shame if his barony were challenged. Finally, I remain with the basic principle that the exercise of the power of deprivation should always be proportionate.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

165: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Reuniting unaccompanied child refugees with family members(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (2) to (6).(2) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a child relative of a person or persons given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection, are that the applicant— (a) is the child, grandchild, sister, brother, nephew or niece of a person or persons granted limited leave to enter or remain as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection granted as such under the immigration rules,(b) is under the age of 18,(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the person or persons the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively,(d) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds, and(e) if seeking leave to enter, holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.(3) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the close relative of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection are that the applicant is—(a) a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection,(b) joining a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who is under the age of 18 and not living with a parent or grandparent, and(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately, together with any dependants, without recourse to public funds.(4) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) may be granted for five years provided that, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant has entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) may be granted provided the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.(5) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is not produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant does not have entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.(6) Civil legal services are to be provided to an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom pursuant to schedule 1, subsection 30(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require changes to the immigration rules to extend the family members that could apply to join an unaccompanied child refugee in the UK, to include parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and to allow unaccompanied child refugees to sponsor close adult family members to join them in the UK. It also provides for legal aid to be available in such cases.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 165, I will also speak to Amendments 166 and 178 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German. I also have my name to Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am sure that none of us is taking it personally that the numbers listening have suddenly so reduced.

I would have liked to put forward amendments that built constructively on what is in the Bill, but, not long before the last day in Committee, the Home Office suspended its rules relating to refugee family reunion. It also gave us the prospect of a framework, to be introduced in the spring, even more restrictive than what was in place when the Bill arrived in this House. So I do not have the basis on which many of us have sought to build, over a good while, to enable refugees to be with their families in the UK with fewer restrictions than are in place at the moment—and preferably none.

Without making a Second Reading speech—I am aware that saying that will make it sound like a Second Reading speech—I want to start with some general observations, the first of which is that family reunion is a safe and managed route. I will take my numbers from briefings from some of the many organisations within the sector, which have been so helpful on this subject and throughout the passage of this Bill. In 2024, just over 4,000 separated children claimed asylum in the UK, and there were about 1,400 in the first half of this year. The top nationalities of these children are telling, and they reflect the severity of the crises that they are fleeing: Sudan, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia. In other words, the vast majority of children arriving irregularly are escaping war, persecution and authoritarian regimes, and most lack access to any recognised regular route to seek protection in the UK.

They are not a threat to the integrity of the refugee system, and these amendments are intended to make the route safer and to make it a safe route for more families and more family members who do not come within the current categories—more than can be achieved by the one-in, one-out arrangement. The risks to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are obvious. The UNHCR tells us that people smugglers are particularly likely to be resorted to by children who are alone. They are seduced by smugglers when family reunion is delayed or at risk. I recall that the Minister said he would be able to bring the House more information about the Home Office supporting unaccompanied children. I do not know whether he will be able to tell the Committee anything today—or, if not, to tell noble Lords when we might receive more information about the support available.

There are risks to other family members. Children and women are often trapped in very dangerous situations and resort to “small boats”. Families should be together. How often do politicians talk about the importance of family? I have the impression that fewer comments are made to this effect than there used to be. What is the damage if Governments keep them apart? People may be separated en route—children separated from adults and adults separated from children—and it is no wonder that some children present at the border as adults. They have had to learn to look after themselves.

The criteria that we understand are to be applied for the greater admission of family members will include long periods of residence here—that, of course, is not entry; it will be settlement—better facility with the English language, and financial requirements. In our view, all of these will exacerbate the precarious situation that so many family members find themselves in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am conscious that we have many groups of amendments to get through, so I shall resist the temptation to respond to everything that has been said—the Whip is nodding vigorously. However, I shall make just a few points. First, at some points in this debate we have fallen into the trap of conflating asylum and refugee policy with immigration policy, and we should resist that. Secondly, on references to traffickers, smugglers and other criminals, they will find new modi operandi, and legislation is not going to achieve everything, or indeed very much, in that area. That is why proposing safe routes is so important, as it is tackling the issue from the other end.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The proposals will be set out shortly, subject to consultation. I hope the noble Lord can await that formal consultation on those proposals.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We can wait, but the people who fear that they will be affected are becoming increasingly anxious.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is an important point. I was going to say we have been asking this question for many months and are still waiting for an answer to it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his very strong support for the amendment and particularly for his really helpful research in the Council of Europe. It is still not clear to me why we are out of step and are the only ones doing this.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. There was one particular thing I asked—which I will not ask him to pursue now because it is late, but perhaps he could write to me—on the guidance, which does not make clear the position of children. Perhaps he could look at Hansard and write to me and to the right reverend Prelate about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a simple group with some simple amendments. As we are close to reaching the end of six rather long days of Committee on this Bill, I will be brief. Amendment 204 seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime in Clause 49 with the punishment for offences relating to articles used in immigration crime in Clauses 13 and 14.

It is slightly strange that Part 3 has found its way into this Bill. The provisions around serious crime prevention orders and articles for use in serious crime were part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which unfortunately fell due to the election. Although it is welcome that this Government are taking these provisions forward, it would have made more sense to include them in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, which we will consider later this week, rather than in an immigration and border security Bill. But, since these clauses have found their way into this Bill, there is good reason to consider them holistically as part of the general measures aimed at deterring immigration offences. That is what the amendments in this group aim to achieve.

Amendment 204 therefore changes the maximum period of imprisonment for possession of an article for use in a serious crime from five years to 14 years. This would be the same as the maximum imprisonment for the new offences of supplying or handling an article for use in immigration crime. Similarly, Amendments 204A and 204B would expand the class of applicants for a serious crime prevention order to include the directors-general of Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, as well as the Border Security Commander. This would permit those senior officials to apply for these prevention orders as part of their duties in protecting our border security and enforcing immigration laws.

Amendment 208B would expand the definition of a “serious crime” for the purposes of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Currently, the only crime under any of the immigration Acts considered to be a serious crime is the offence of assisting unlawful immigration and helping an asylum seeker enter the United Kingdom. If a serious crime prevention order can be given for these offences, why can one not be given for all offences under Sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration Act 1971? Certainly, why can one not be given under the new immigration offences in Clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill?

These amendments, taken together, are intended to strengthen the ability of the authorities to tackle immigration crimes by giving them the necessary legal tools. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 207 in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that it is rather odd that the serious crime prevention provisions are in this Bill. I wondered whether it is because the Crime and Policing Bill was “overloaded”—would that be the term to use? But that is the extent to which I agree with the noble Lord.

I am not alone on these Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I have raised a number of times over the years our concern about civil orders morphing into crime without any finding of guilt. The Bill extends serious crime prevention orders with the inclusion of electronic monitoring and the creation of interim orders, extends the list of parties who can apply for an order—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would extend it further—and gives the Crown Court jurisdiction in this area. So it will be no surprise to anyone who has heard us before to see this amendment.

It is not only the extensions that make the need for a review all the more important. There is very little evidence or data, if any, to show that the orders work. They overlap with other orders, so there is some confusion. There is inconsistency in their use, which I have become very aware of in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where it became clear that some police forces were not even aware that they could pursue equivalent orders. There is a lack of resourcing and infrastructure to monitor and enforce orders. Breaches are common, which is not surprising, because individuals do not have adequate support to comply with the restrictions and requirements that orders can contain and so, as has been put to us, they are set up to fail.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights made recommendations with regard to these provisions:

“Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the test should be one of ‘necessity and proportionality’, not whether it is ‘appropriate’”,


and,

“To ensure respect for Convention rights, the prosecuting authorities and the courts must be careful to only seek and impose these interim orders where risks are imminent”.


Rather than proposing those provisions specifically, we on these Benches feel that it would be helpful and important for there to be a review of prevention orders in the round before we make piecemeal additions to them, and a review would certainly extend to the issues of necessity and proportionality.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in the first instance, if I may, for their careful consideration of these new provisions and for tabling Amendment 204. I recognise that the amendment stems from a shared commitment to robustly address serious crimes. With regard to objectives, I think we are largely on the same page here. I am hoping that I am going to be able to explain why the provisions are framed as they are in a way that will satisfy the noble Lords.

This amendment seeks to align the sentencing framework for this new offence with that of Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with articles intended to for use in immigration crime. The articles for use in immigration crime offences require that the individual charged knew or suspected that what they were supplying or handling was for use in immigration crime. People, such as smuggling gangs, know that, although the items involved may be very everyday items, they are being supplied and sold to vulnerable people, and in doing so they contribute to the tragic loss of life at sea and in the back of refrigerated lorries. This is a serious crime leading to endangerment and loss of life and, as such, combined with the mens rea threshold, the sentence is set appropriately and proportionately high.

By contrast—this is the distinction, because it relates to both the amendments that I want to clarify—the new offence in this clause targets items that are rarely if ever used for lawful purposes. There is a strong justification in the Government’s view for shifting the evidential burden in those cases. I will come in a moment to the question of reviewing and monitoring that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. For example, where someone is found with a 3D firearm template or a pill press, the suspect will need to demonstrate a lawful purpose, which will obviously be very difficult. Standardising the punishment across these two offences would ignore those important differences and, with that in mind, while I understand the intent behind the amendment and the seriousness with which we take the commitment to address the issues in both immigration crimes and serious crime prevention orders, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Turning now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am grateful to her and the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Davis and Lord Cameron, for their careful scrutiny of these provisions and for tabling Amendments 204A, 204B, 207 and 208B. Amendments 204A and 204B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, propose expanding the list of agencies that can apply for a serious crime prevention order to include Border Force, Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Command. I reassure the noble Lords that the Government share their intention to ensure that front-line agencies can apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO and therefore remove some of the difficulties. That is why the Bill is already expanding the list of agencies to include the police in all cases, as well as the National Crime Agency, HMRC, Ministry of Defence Police and British Transport Police. It is likely that, in many cases where criminal proceedings are not being pursued, these agencies, in our view, will be best placed to lead the process of applying for an SCPO as they will already have an in-depth knowledge of the case.

However—I come to the point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower—to add these three Home Office commands to this list would be ineffectual. That is because we believe they are not resourced to monitor and enforce SCPOs effectively. Rather, their focus is rightly on protecting the UK’s border while working alongside law enforcement agencies. I think we are suggesting that, without stating it too baldly, there is a conceptual difference in our mind between border security and pursuing that and law enforcement and monitoring that. We think their focus should be on protecting the UK’s border while working alongside law enforcement, such as the National Crime Agency, referring cases and sharing intelligence as appropriate. Therefore, on that basis, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have given the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron, some reassurance on the seriousness with which we all take this and that I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, some reassurance on the proportionately and safeguards that we are introducing with these changes. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw. I should add a clear commitment that we will keep the House updated, both on the issues of the seriousness of the offences which the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, have raised and on the proportionality question.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, that has to some extent answered the point I was going to make, but the noble Lord has made me realise that we missed a trick in not seeking to leave out the power to extend these provisions, as he has just mentioned. He said that the use will be monitored and that there will be data. I take it that that will be published. Will the evaluation of the monitoring be published, because monitoring without assessing what is going on is not terribly helpful? Does it fall within the reporting to the House? He may not in a position to answer that this evening—or rather this morning—but perhaps he can write to me on that.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am very happy to write on that point but, speaking as a practitioner of the dark arts of evaluation, I am generally in favour of its publication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 208 and 208A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Dubs. I begin by saying that we on these Benches agree very much with the underlying principle: the importance of taking action against those who endanger lives at sea.

We appreciate the passion behind this amendment. Indeed, I fully appreciate it, having been a maritime Minister. That is a principle that we have strongly supported. Indeed, it is one already reflected in the amendments we have tabled to this Bill. There can be no doubt that the small boat crossings in the channel are dangerous, reckless and exploitative. Time and again we have seen the devastating consequences of criminal gangs putting men, women and children into overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, knowing full well the risks to life that this involves.

However, this amendment as drafted, we believe, is flawed. It appears to rest on an assumption that some of the vessels are safe and some are not, and that it is the task of enforcement authorities to distinguish between the two. That is not a distinction that exists in reality. The simple truth is that one endangers lives at sea purely in the act of getting into one of these boats in the first place. Every single vessel making an illegal crossing of the channel is, by definition, dangerously unsafe. Everyone involved in launching or boating those vessels, from the organisers to the passengers, is participating in an inherently perilous act which should be treated as such under the law.

We cannot afford a situation in which authorities must first determine whether a vessel is dangerously unsafe before intervening. We cannot wait for tragedy to occur before action can be taken. The legal position must be absolutely clear: all such crossings are unsafe, unlawful and unacceptable. That is the principle that underpins the approach that we have advocated throughout this Bill and the one that we believe that the Government must continue to uphold.

On Amendment 208A, I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure effective co-operation between the Border Force’s maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard. However, it is not clear that the creation of an additional co-ordinating body, as this amendment proposes, would make any practical difference on the ground. The Border Force and the coastguard already operate under well-established protocols for joint working through the Joint Maritime Security Centre. We must trust the professionals on the front line, the experts in the Border Force and the coastguard, to exercise the powers granted to them safely, responsibly and in the national interest.

The answer to the challenges in the channel lies not in expanding bureaucracy or creating new administrative structures but in ensuring that the powers and resources that we have already legislated for are used effectively. Both these amendments proceed from understandable and serious concerns, but in our view the right way forward is not to introduce new uncertainty into the law nor to create additional layers of oversight but to maintain clear, firm principles—that all small boat crossings are inherently unsafe and that those charged with policing them must be trusted to act decisively and professionally to prevent loss of life and secure our borders.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was intrigued to know what points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to raise. After listening to him, it occurs to me to ask the Minister whether HM Coastguard is a partner authority under Clause 3 of the Bill:

“a public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

Of course, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the Border Force commander—so I am asking about context.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on record in Committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are, sadly, dying or being put at risk at sea. I can give him the assurance that, if he wants to pass me Captain Schanck’s report at some point, I shall make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail and, if there are issues to which I can respond post that, I shall certainly do so.

The purpose of this Bill is several-fold, but there are two particular examples in the Bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table before the Committee. The first is the role of the Border Security Commander, which I shall come on to in a moment—and will, I hope, answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised as well. But I draw his attention to Clause 18, which we considered earlier, which provides a specific new offence of endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom.

Amendment 208 would introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law relating to the safety of vessels in relation to small-boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I do not think that it is responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel; our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also—and I hope that it is helpful to my noble friend to say this—existing maritime law in force. We should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vessels and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.

Turning to Amendment 208, the strengthening of the border command is important, and this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new border command established by the Bill is responsible for co-ordinating border forces, maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard for the purposes of border security. The Border Security Command established by the Bill provides strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats, not just for Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people-smuggling gangs. That is, I think, the spirit of what the amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do.

In addition, my noble friend will be aware that the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, is designed to co-ordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The JMSC is the UK’s centre of excellence for maritime security. I have myself had meetings at its headquarters in the past 12 months. It provides 24/7 monitoring and reporting of global waters, it plans the response to maritime events, and it looks at UK global maritime threats and sanctions-related understanding. To achieve this, the JMSC engages with a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and will also discuss with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening in the channel. So I understand why my noble friend has brought this amendment forward, but I argue that the new body would be essentially a duplication and is not required. The Border Security Command will be drawing together expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats, building on the expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in relation to Clause 3, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there is that link and the assumption is that there will be close co-operation.

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I will certainly make sure that the Home Office Minister responsible for this policy area gets sight of the report referred to, but I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.