Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the debate on this important Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords in seeking to speak. This is a key Bill for the Government and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I will set out why this Government have brought forward the Bill for the benefit of noble Lords today.

Immigration has always been an important part of the United Kingdom’s story. But for it to be so, it must be controlled and managed so that the system is fair and works for people in this country as a whole. Proper enforcement of and respect for the rules are key to that. The Bill before us addresses a number of those areas, and the recently published White Paper runs parallel to the Bill and covers a number of other areas.

The Bill is predominantly about the issues of illegal and irregular migration, and I think it is clear to noble Lords and any observer that the current situation cannot go on. Criminal gangs have had six years to take over the English Channel unchecked and to set up and run criminal enterprises that exploit people at their most vulnerable. As a result, there is a massive strain on the already overstretched immigration and asylum system supports. It is in nobody’s interest to continue as we are. The Bill seeks to make real change.

The criminal gangs have no respect for the lives of those they traffic. Often 50 people or more are crammed into unseaworthy vessels, sometimes facing threats and intimidation when they raise concerns. As a result, we have seen individuals tragically die in the channel. Make no mistake: this is part of a broader criminal enterprise, which seeks to bring weapons, drugs and a wide array of items used to carry out criminal activity into our local communities, smuggled into the United Kingdom. The Government are absolutely committed to taking down the gangs that risk the lives of so many people in our communities.

This Government are taking the necessary actions to secure our borders, to bring the immigration and asylum system under control and to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change. The Government are determined to tackle irregular migration, to bring control back to our borders and to stop the appalling loss of life in the channel. It is also important that alongside this we have a properly functioning asylum and immigration system that delivers timely decisions for individuals and makes sure that those with no right to be here are removed.

The legislation before us will strengthen the UK’s border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect UK border security that sees the Government working more closely with our international partners up stream and in our near neighbourhood, enhancing operational activity nationally and internationally and ensuring that our law enforcement and operational teams have the powers and tools they need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime activity.

What are the key measures in the Bill? First, the Bill places a new Border Security Commander and his role on a statutory footing and clearly explains the functions that will allow this role to be an enduring one that brings together the skills and expertise of a variety of agencies to tackle the issues faced, united behind a set of border security priorities.

Secondly, the Bill establishes landmark new offences, contained within the legislation, which will provide law enforcement agencies working across border security with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime. This should not be a surprise to noble Lords, because in the election almost a year ago the Labour Party stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce new counterterrorism-style powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening UK border security. This Bill will deliver the new offences.

Among the new offences is one to ensure that action is taken against those who endanger others during sea crossings to the UK. These crossings are exceptionally dangerous, and I regret the loss of life we have seen even this year. The Government are determined to prevent such loss of life in the channel with these new powers.

The Bill will also create new powers to seize and search electronic devices where there is suspicion of involvement in organised immigration crime activity. This will build a better picture for law enforcement agencies investigating the activity of gangs. The Bill will ensure that data-sharing capabilities will be expanded to assist in developing the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime and other threats, make it easier for public agencies to share information and enhance the ability to act. For example, measures to allow the DVLA to share trailer data and for HMRC to share customs data will enhance the work of Border Force.

The Bill’s biometric provisions will provide greater flexibility when taking biometrics from individuals who are part of a UK evacuation. They will allow for the provision of biometrics at ports in Scotland, fixing the situation that has developed where law enforcement officials are needing to drive to a police station to carry out this task.

Measures in the Bill also focus on serious and organised crime and make it clear that it will be an offence to possess the articles named in the Bill, which we know are used in criminality and which harm communities. There is also an expansion of the serious crime prevention order regime, introducing new interim orders which will allow law enforcement to act immediately to tackle criminality where it occurs.

The Bill will strengthen the immigration and asylum systems as a whole. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to end the wasteful migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda and use that funding to set up our new Border Security Command, led by Martin Hewitt.

Let me be completely clear: the Government’s plans in the previous Parliament to deal with Rwanda were wholly unworkable. They were going to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and would never have dealt with the sheer number of migrants we are seeing in the channel. Around £700 million has been spent to date, and it is time to close it down. Only four people left the United Kingdom under the Rwanda scheme, and they left voluntarily. The legislation before us, as a manifesto commitment, repeals the costly and unworkable measure introduced by the previous Government and introduces new provisions to start to address the real challenges faced, to tackle harm and to build a more efficient and robust asylum and immigration system.

Beyond the provisions that repeal the safety of Rwanda Act and huge swathes of the Illegal Migration Act, the Bill will equip the Immigration Services Commissioner with the tools they need to identify and tackle abuses within the immigration advice sector. Under the Bill, the Immigration Advice Authority will have new powers to fine or suspend those who provide poor-quality advice to those going through the immigration process, restoring trust in the system—I hope and believe—by tackling such poor practice.

In this extensive Bill, we are also introducing measures that aim to begin taking the action needed to ensure a properly functioning, effective immigration system. The Bill will introduce a new, 24-week statutory timeline for appeals as part of the Government’s work to tackle the enormous backlog of cases we have inherited. To assist cases to move through the system and to provide individuals with clarity on outcomes, cases where the individual is in asylum accommodation—at great taxpayer expense—and cases of non-detained foreign national offenders will be prioritised as far as practically possible.

The Bill also provides for greater protections against harm in our communities, supporting—as I know noble Lords will support—the removal of foreign national criminals and ensuring that sexual offences are treated with the seriousness they deserve. For example, those convicted of Schedule 3 offences will not benefit from refugee protections in the United Kingdom. We recognise the devastating impact that these offences have on victims and our communities, and we as a Government are determined that individuals who commit them cannot benefit from our protections.

Stronger conditions will be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal from the United Kingdom. These measures mean that those who do not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed due to obligations in law can have certain conditions placed upon them if they pose a threat to the public. This is another measure to try to keep our communities safer.

We are strengthening the detention powers available to the Home Office when an individual is subject to deportation on the basis that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. This measure removes ambiguity around when powers may be used.

Extending the right-to-work scheme to those who fall under other working relationships will crack down on those working illegally, many of whom are being exploited for cheap labour. It is an objective of the Government to try to drive down that cheap labour market, which is an underbelly in our communities at large.

Finally, changes to the EU settlement scheme, which will be welcomed by a number of noble Lords, will confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the beginning of this scheme; namely, to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the United Kingdom.

The main priority of the Bill is to protect the UK’s border and to make changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system. We are ensuring that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections that the UK has a long history of providing to those in need.

We have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure and our laws to be enforced, and we have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies at the hands of criminal gangs. The plan before us is a clear, impactful plan for change. The Bill will restore order and trust to our immigration and asylum system, and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to be able to tackle the people-smuggling gangs who exploit individuals and place them in perilous situations in the channel. This Government are committed to a fully functioning system, and we will debate migration as a whole in the White Paper in due course.

The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. To date, since the Government were elected, the National Crime Agency has seized 600 boats and engines, taken down 18,000 social media accounts, ensured that 30,000 people have been returned since the election, including a 23% increase in enforced returns of foreign national offenders, and is taking action on illegal working visits and arrests, increased by 40% and 42% respectively. But the Government need more powers to improve their performance on illegal migration. The Bill before the House today gives those powers to the agencies to make that difference. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We commenced at 6.09 pm, and four hours and four minutes later we are coming to a conclusion. I sense, however, that this has been only an hors d’oeuvre for what will come in Committee as we consider this matter further.

We have had a thoughtful debate, and I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady in saying that language and tone are extremely important in how we approach these debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, mentioned, there are forces who will exploit these matters if we—both Houses of Parliament—do not deal with these issues effectively.

Before I turn to the Bill, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his maiden speech. He was right that I shadowed him for a while in the House of Commons when he was the Minister. I did indeed go to Calais in 2014 and tried to put some points to both him and the then Home Secretary. While we had our disagreements, I do not think that we fell out over those issues. We had a civilised relationship, which I hope will continue. He gave a confident maiden speech today, and I particularly welcome his comments about the late Sir Roy Stone, who served in the Whips’ Office for all parties for many years.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about an orchestra. We have had some cohesion in the sense that there are some areas of agreement today: we have agreement that we need to look at the issues of prevention and that we need a deterrent, although we disagreed about what that deterrent should be. We have had some discussion about safe routes, and I will come to that in a moment. We have had agreement on the security command and the need for that co-ordination, and we have had agreement on international obligations being met. I want to assure my noble friend Lord Sahota and other noble Lords who raised this that we will maintain our international agreements and co-operation as currently set out in law. I will talk to each of those points in a moment.

The debate also covered a range of issues to do with the role of students, employment, family reunion, net migration, exit and entry, regulation, integration, pressure on homes, the value of migration and statistics, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned and are important. I say to noble Lords—and that includes the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Jackson, Lord Green, Lord Blunkett, Lord Goodman, Lord Macdonald, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord McInnes, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor, Lady Brinton and Lady May—that those issues are at the heart of the immigration White Paper, which does not form part of the Bill but is a good background to the issues that have been raised and will form part of the Government’s ongoing strategy to develop an approach to migration issues. While they are important, I do not want to ignore them, but I do not want to focus on them today because today’s focus is about the question of this legislation and what we do about the predominantly illegal migration—irregular migration—that is taking place.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who kicked off this debate, how we have got to where we are today. The issues with hotel accommodation, asylum use and levels of small boat incursion did not happen since 4 July last year; they are long-term systemic issues over which his Government presided. Collectively, we have to look at solutions.

There have been many views on the Bill and its provisions put forward today by Members of this House. The Government are trying to put some measures in place to deal with those key issues. The first of those—and this goes to the heart of a number of points that were made, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—is on the question of deterrence.

We have taken a decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. That was welcomed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick, Lady Brinton, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. But there is a clear difference of opinions on the Rwanda Act between the noble Lords and the current Government, and that is that we need a deterrent. The deterrent is about capturing boats, looking at assets and putting measures in place to disrupt those gangs, but it is not the Rwanda scheme as determined by the previous Government. That already spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to send back only four people who went voluntarily.

During the period after that Bill became law to when this Government determined that it would be repealed, 84,000 people still crossed the channel. That was not a deterrent for those individuals at that stage. So we need a deterrent, and the deterrent we need is the type of arrests that the noble Lord asked me to look at and which we have made already: arrests among a Syrian organised crime group linked to 750 migrants from the UK and Europe since 4 July; the arrest of a Turkish national suspected of being a supplier of small boats; the conviction of two men from Wales who ran a smuggling gang; the arrest of six men in Belgium; NCA support for German law enforcement operations with 13 arrests across Germany and France; and the NCA establishing, with authorities in Libya and Kurdistan—a region of Iraq—how we actually tackle smuggling at that upstream level. Those are deterrents, and we need a deterrent. I and the Government do not believe that the Rwanda scheme was effective.

The question of what we do in place of that is very important. The Bill establishes Border Security Command. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, rightly asked, “What are the key performance indicators on that?” For us, they are a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs, and we will discuss that as the Bill goes forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friend Lord McInnes and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, raised that issue. The commander in place will provide strategic cross-system leadership, is already engaging with nations in the European Union about what we need to do together, and has already worked with the NCA, the Home Secretary and others to establish both the Iraq scheme that we put in place and new co-operations with the imaginatively named Calais group to look at how we can reduce the number of crossings at that level.

There are indicators that need to be put in place, and we will be judged on those indicators and on those manifesto commitments. But our work with the French already has prevented 9,000 crossings this year. Germany, through the work of the Border Security Commander, is looking to change its laws so that it can prosecute people upstream on supply. We have secured the landmark agreement with Iraq and have set up the new border command with £150 million-worth of support. Yes, there need to be indicators, as the noble Viscount mentioned, but I believe that is an important issue that we have undertaken.

Just to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the actions that we have taken to date, we scrapped the “Bibby Stockholm”, which she mentioned; we have taken a range of actions to do with current accommodation; we are committed to reduce the level of asylum hotels; and we are committed to use the resource from the scheme that we have scrapped in Rwanda to speed up the processing of asylum claims in order to determine who has a genuine asylum claim according to our international obligations, who does not, and then to remove them. Part of the importance of the Bill is to put that framework in place.

A number of noble Members raised the question of safe and legal routes, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. The UK has a strong history of providing protection through our safe and legal routes, and we want to continue to welcome refugees and people in need. As Members will know, we already have bespoke routes to sanctuary, such as the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong schemes, and in relation to Sudan we have already accepted 300 nationals to be resettled through our schemes as of September 2024.

The safe and legal routes are there. Do we need to review them and look at how we meet our international obligations? Yes, we do. Again, I refer to the immigration White Paper before us. On the safe and legal route option—my noble friend Lord Dubs discussed his family reunion option—there are safe and legal routes that we can look at, but I am sure I will discuss with my noble friend, as I have done already, his concerns during upcoming stages, and I will give consideration as to how we can improve understanding, knowledge and action in those areas.

Noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the wider work with the EU: my noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned that particularly, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Bilimoria. It is extremely important, and one of the things that the Government will not do is stand back from Europe. We will not revisit the Brexit debate—we cannot do that—but we can look at how we can improve co-operation on key issues. That means law enforcement but also a whole range of things. We have extra support with Europol, and we had the EU-UK summit on 19 May, where a new wide-ranging package of measures that address all elements of the global challenge was discussed.

Again, deterrence is also about understanding the problem; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned very clearly how we understand that problem. One of the things we need to do is to work with our European partners—not our European Union partners any more but still our European partners—to assess and examine the challenge of irregular migration upstream. That is one thing that we are trying to do collectively to improve that European work.

Turning to the question from my noble friend Lord Dubs, we have done a lot of work with France on organised international crime, because it is a shared problem in which all nations have a role to play. It is really important that we have, through Border Security Command, operational activity at a local level with the nations that border us. The results of that have seen 600 boats and engines already taken down, 30,000 returns since the election—a 12% increase over the previous period—a 23% increase in enforced returns and an increase in foreign national offender removals. Those are important issues. They are in the Bill, but they are also areas that we need to look at as part of the immigration White Paper as a whole.

Let me turn to modern slavery, because I understand and note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and others. The sole modern slavery provision in the Bill would allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public grounds. The Home Office has committed to working with partners to agree priorities on long-term reform as part of the national referral mechanism. I understand what the noble Baroness said, but I will look at that issue, because I do not want to see watering down of modern slavery provisions. I supported the Bill, now an Act, that she took through as Home Secretary some 10 years ago, and I want to make sure that we deal with that. But the purpose of the modern slavery provision that we are looking at is dealing with foreign national offenders who are involved in modern slavery. I heard what she said today. We will look at that, and there is an opportunity to examine those issues as we progress the Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord McInnes and Lord Swire, mentioned third-country processing. That is not the Rwanda scheme. Examinations are ongoing with partners across Europe. Scoping work has shown that it is a model that could meet our international obligations and reduce the burden of illegal migration on UK shores. We will work closely with international partners to look at the global migration crisis as a whole.

I will end with a couple of other issues that have been mentioned. The EU settlement scheme was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The clause on EU citizens’ rights is designed to confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the UK settlement scheme was established. Again, I have heard what she said. I hope that when we look at that in detail, we can take on board those issues and debate them in full, but I hope we can give her some satisfaction on those issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised a number of key points. Again, I will reflect on those, as I hope she knows I will.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark mentioned the detention pilot. I give him an assurance that the department is going to keep under review the feasibility of the alternatives to the detention pilot, taking into account effectiveness and cost-efficiency, as part of our plans to transform the asylum and return system. Again, I will refer to him in due course on those issues. Our international obligations are extremely important. The Bill does not include them, but there is an opportunity within the discussion on the Bill to outline still further what we are doing on those issues.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on migration and immigration issues today. Much of that is outside the scope of this Bill. I understand why it been linked to the Bill, but it is outside its scope. The Bill is designed to focus predominantly on illegal migration. In doing so, we have established Border Security Command, which we are giving the power to track and confiscate mobile phones. We are looking at how to deal with downstream suppliers and doing what we said we would do in our manifesto, which is to disrupt and spoil the gangs that are operating this evil cross-channel trade. That is what the Bill will do, and I defy anyone in this House to say any that of the measures in the Bill to take action against those criminal gangs should not be undertaken.

We will have an honest debate about the deterrence issue and about the repeal of the Rwanda Bill. We believe that we have alternatives to that, but the measures in this Bill are worthy of support. How we look at integration, employment and students, how we encourage family reunion, how we build a society in which people are respected but also integrated and how we value the people who have come to this country over many years and through many generations are issues in the White Paper, which will be debated.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful summing-up of the debate. He will understand that the current discussions around reforming the ECHR are germane to this Bill and wider immigration issues. There are nine countries doing that. This Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity to take part. If he cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining why that is the case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are aware that a letter has been circulated by countries, which is perfectly legitimate. They are countries within the European Union; we are outside the European Union now. We will look at the provisions of Article 8 and how we can interpret them but maintaining—very importantly for those Members who have raised these issues—our integral role as a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations, but it does not mean that we cannot look at interpretations and examine how we implement those regulations in a UK context. We will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter, but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues.

I will look at Hansard in detail. I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full. I look forward to the debates we will have on specific amendments and specific clauses. However, I look to this House to give support to the Government’s proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if those people have legitimate asylum claims. This is being done by criminal gangs for illegal profit. We need international co-operation to tackle the downstream issues and to tackle the gangs at source.

I commend this Bill to the House today in order to continue that progress and to ensure that we have a full debate in Committee on its contents and the suggestions that will undoubtedly come forward from all sides of the House.

Bill read a second time.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I had not meant to take part in this debate, but I wonder whether I am the only Member of your Lordships’ Committee who is finding it rather surreal—mainly the lack of urgency, although I am not blaming the Minister for that. However, even as we speak in here today, dozens—probably hundreds—of illegal migrants are wandering up the beaches of Kent and disappearing into our country. This Bill cannot become law for some considerable time; surely a greater sense of urgency is necessary.

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

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that there is a great sense of urgency from this Government on the issue that he raises. The people are not “wandering up the beaches” of Dover. They are being collected by boats in the channel when the criminal gangs bring them across, and then they are taken for identification and processing. It has been a long while since people walked up the beaches of Dover—it was under a previous Government that they put their feet in that Kent sand. They are now being dealt with in an effective way.

The purpose of the border commander and the clauses before us today is not to have the limited ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, indicated he thought was behind the Bill; it is to maximise the ambition and ensure that we put it in place strongly and effectively. That goes to the heart of the noble Viscount’s comments as well, because we are very clear that the border commander has a number of key roles to play. The border commander has been put in place to co-ordinate and organise—yes—but he has a significant budget of £150 million this year and in the recent spending review has been given by the Chancellor an additional significant budget for the three years hence.

The purpose of that co-ordinating role is to do what I think is appropriate, which is to co-ordinate and bring together agencies in the UK. The commander will also, on behalf of the Home Secretary and the Government, take part in further negotiations with our partner colleagues in Europe and the Middle East, as has been seen today, to ensure that we put in place mechanisms to reduce the flow that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, rightly highlighted as an important issue for us to take forward.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on from the points that I made, can he answer the question about what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill that his office cannot do currently, on a non-statutory footing? We do not need new legislative provisions to achieve co-ordination, advice and budgetary management—witness the fact that there is already a commander in place who is busy co-ordinating.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Viscount’s comments, but the clauses in Chapter 1—for example, “Duty to prepare annual reports”, “Duties of cooperation etc” and “The Board” overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements on the Border Security Commander. The noble Viscount is right that the current Border Security Commander, appointed by the Home Secretary, is undertaking those roles as a civil servant, but it is important that we underpin that with a legislative framework so that this House, the House of Commons, the Government and the people are clear about what the roles and responsibilities are. We have taken that view, and the noble Viscount may disagree or want further clarification, but that is the purpose of the first 12 clauses of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, far be it from me to be helping the Minister out at this point, but I want to be friendly. Exactly the same issues occurred to me, particularly that the commander is in post now and has been for months, as the noble Viscount said. Presumably it would not be possible, without a statutory basis, to require, for instance, co-operation with other statutory agencies. So, at the very least, the Bill would be needed for that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, acting as super sub today, continues to make very valid points on this issue. Let me go to the heart of the amendments, if I may. The group contains various amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron. First, they seek to remove the requirement that the Border Security Commander is a civil servant. Given that the role sits within the Home Office and that the commander leads a directorate within the department, it is logical that the role sits within the Civil Service.

This does not mean that the post of Border Security Commander is reserved solely for existing civil servants. Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally. Any future recruitment exercises would seek to identify the most suitable candidate, irrespective of their background. Ultimately, they are acting in a Civil Service role, accountable to the Home Secretary. That is the important point, and I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that.

The noble Lord also raised the very important point about the prior experience required to be eligible to be appointed as Border Security Commander. As Members have recognised, the current Border Security Commander served previously as an officer of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I do not believe it is prudent to limit the pool of candidates eligible to serve in this important position, and we believe that any future recruitment exercise would have the scope to identify the best talent, without limitation, ensuring that we bring the effectiveness of the role to its maximum potential.

The Government have been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for requiring the step change in the UK’s approach to border security—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, addressed. We want to provide a clear and long-term vision for border security, to bring together and provide leadership to all parts of the system, to work to maintain the integrity of our border and immigration systems domestically and internationally. The significance of this role and this work is reflected in the Bill, which puts this office on a statutory footing, for the very reasons that I hope I have outlined. It creates legal requirements on the officeholder in fulfilling their duty.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of the background of an individual. We want to have as wide a pool as possible—I hope that addresses her point.

The commander has already used his post and the associated capabilities to deploy key functions to date across government on the border security system. He has also helped support the Home Secretary in signing a landmark agreement with the Iraqi Government. We have struck a new anti-smuggling action plan with the G7; we are hosting an international summit on organised immigration crime; and we have meetings early next month with colleague nations in the European community to look at how we can work on this issue. Those are important roles and tasks. They add value to the work we are trying to do in very difficult circumstances to smash the criminal gangs and to stem the flow across the channel.

The House can have confidence that those roles being exercised currently will be in future on a statutory basis, and issues to do with reporting and accountability have been set down in law. Therefore, it is not for today, but I hope the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said and, at a later date, not push the amendments to a vote.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to this debate.

We have heard the words from the Government Benches about co-ordination, structure and strategic intent, but let us not lose sight of what this role is supposed to be: a commander. That word carries meaning. It is not simply a metaphor or a piece of Civil Service terminology. I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when she says it is not about rank. Rank implies leadership, authority and the ability to direct. Without that, the title is misleading at best and meaningless at worst.

What we are being offered in the Bill is a model that risks falling flat. The important point is that it risks creating an official with no clear mandate, no operational standing and no public visibility—in short, a co-ordinator with a title that suggests much more than they are empowered to deliver.

If we fail to define this role properly now, we risk embedding a model that lacks clarity, ambition and—crucially—the power to deliver the very outcomes the Government claim to seek. We cannot risk this position becoming yet another layer of the Whitehall machine, held by a nameless bureaucrat with no real responsibilities.

The amendments we have tabled do not ask for the impossible. They do not tie the Secretary of State’s hands. They simply ensure that the commander is someone of appropriate rank, experience and credibility—someone who can command confidence not just within government but with operational partners and the public alike.

We have seen what can be achieved when such roles are taken seriously. I referenced the Australian example earlier, where a senior military figure led a co-ordinated, multi-agency border response, which shows what is possible with the right leadership and mandate.

We can do the same, but we will not get there by default or by quiet delegation within the Home Office. We must decide now whether we want this to be a genuinely powerful and directive post, or just another name in a long line of forgotten titles.

These amendments are a simple safeguard against mediocrity and a clear statement of intent that this House expects better than business as usual. We will look at this as the Bill progresses but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments and for giving us the opportunity to discuss them.

I am slightly disappointed that I have moved from being a bruiser to being emollient—but there we go. I will take that as a potential compliment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I just remind him that I reserve my right to bruise, if it is needed, but I hope it will not be on these issues.

This group contains various amendments relating to the appointment of the Border Security Commander, again tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron. The key issue in the amendments is about how the Border Security Commander will engage with Parliament. The amendments state:

“The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament”


when an individual is designated as the Border Security Commander and to ensure that the Border Security Commander appears before any parliamentary committees when invited, and to make a Statement to Parliament in the event that the designation of the Border Security Commander is terminated, setting out the reasons for that termination.

If and when an individual is designated as the Border Security Commander—as well as the event of their ultimate termination—that would be announced in the usual way for senior officials in the Civil Service. We would make a Statement on that, and there would be the ability for a Private Notice Question or an Urgent Question to be tabled, depending on the House. There would be opportunities for the Government to table WMSs, and for Questions to be asked, on a daily basis in this House and on a regular basis in the House of Commons, about the reasons behind those decisions. The Government will certainly be transparent on these matters.

We also value the role that parliamentary committees play. If requests are made to attend committees, every effort will be made for the border commander to attend. There are already opportunities for officials across the Home Office and other government departments, who are at the level of the border commander, to appear, either independent of Ministers or in support of Ministers on key issues.

The final amendment in the group would require that the terms and conditions of the Border Security Commander and the key performance indicators used to determine their effectiveness are published. I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 2, which sets out the terms and conditions of the designation of the Border Security Commander. Although it would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed terms and conditions of an individual civil servant, the Border Security Commander is a director-general-level position in the Home Office and has the terms and conditions in line with that appointment.

The Government have been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for leading the required step change in the UK’s approach to border security, providing a clear and long-term vision for border security, bringing together and providing leadership, and working to maintain the integrity of our border and immigration systems, both domestically and internationally. The significance of this role and its work is reflected in the Bill, which puts this office on the statutory footing we talked about earlier and creates legal requirements on the officeholder in fulfilling their duties.

The key performance indicators are the ones that the Government are setting themselves. We want to smash the gangs, reduce crossings made on an illegal basis, reduce and speed up asylum claims, and make sure that we reduce the number of hotel accommodations being used. Those are performance indicators which the Government have put in place. The Border Security Commander’s role is to help the Government co-ordinate those activities, with the budget and the staffing that they have, and to help deliver on those objectives. There is transparency and clarity on these issues. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord on the amendments that he has brought forward.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I point out to noble Lords that these amendments are not about creating additional bureaucracy. They are very much about reinforcing something far more fundamental, which is trust—trust in the effectiveness of the new Border Security Commander, trust in the process by which they are appointed, assessed and, if necessary, removed; and trust in the Government’s commitment to openness and transparency on a matter of genuine public concern.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I just ask the noble Lord this question. Does he feel that the Home Secretary in the House of Commons and me, as the Minister in the Lords for the Home Office, would not be held to account for both the appointment and any removal of the Border Security Commander and their performance—by which I mean also the Government’s performance—as regards the issues which are of great concern to both sides of this House? That is where I think we are. This is the place to hold us to account on performance.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I fully accept what the Minister says. He can rest assured that he will be held to account in the House of Lords, and I am sure my friends in the other place will be holding the Home Secretary to account.

The Government have chosen to elevate this role, presenting it as central to their response to illegal migration and cross-border criminality, yet, as it stands, the Bill offers almost no insight into how that role will be structured, what standards of performance will apply, or what transparency will be in place if the arrangements break down. If the Government believe that this new position will be effective, and if they believe in the strength of their policy, then publishing the terms and conditions, setting the key performance indicators and offering transparency around dismissal should be welcome. These amendments would give Ministers the opportunity to prove they are serious about making this role deliver real results.

We cannot tackle this issue with platitudes and meaningless positions. The public need to know what sort of deal they are getting through this Bill. With that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will add a couple of points to the excellent points that have been made by previous speakers. My noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point about the opportunism that is evident in the kinds of product that criminals can switch between was well made: they might one day smuggle people and another day smuggle contaminated food products, including meat.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, concerning the impact on the economic interests of the UK very much ties up with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in particular, and with trying to persuade the Treasury that the costs of foot and mouth, BSE and bird flu are important. You would think that this was self-evident, even to the Treasury. I would like to say that I was surprised at hearing that it was not, but maybe I was not.

You do not have to be a countryman to think that. I admit that you could not get a lot more metropolitan than I am, but like my noble friend I listen to “The Archers” and care about the countryside. It is not true that all of us who live in cities do not care about the countryside, but we must care about biosecurity as consumers, as well as about the impact on farmers. I absolutely support that idea, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether it should be part of the functions of border commander. It certainly needs to go much higher—I was going to say “up the food chain”, but that would be a bad pun—up the profile of government priorities to protect the country from biosecurity threats.

There has been a lot of concern about whether post-Brexit controls are being implemented. I am not a world expert, but the can has been kicked down the road time after time on those controls. There is also concern about whether Border Force and port health authorities are being given enough resources to stamp out illegal meat and other contaminated food imports. The Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was given a grilling by the EFRA Select Committee in the other place early last month; I do not know whether there has been any product from its evidence sessions, chaired by my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael, but that committee is showing how importantly it takes these issues. We have noble Lords with experience of senior government posts in this area—the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—so I hope the Minister will give us a positive response.

Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned the role of trading standards, which has been so underfunded, sadly. We know what pressure council budgets are under. As a consumer, trading standards is not even on my radar, these days. Where do you go if you have a consumer complaint? I have no idea. Was it not batted off to Citizens Advice a long time ago? Anyway, we know about this function: you have the border and then you have the inside the country attention to these matters. Probably we ought to be aware that they all seem to be quite underfunded and a bit fragile in places. We know that there are so many issues that the police are unable to deal with these days, in this whole area.

There is a lot of press coverage of things such as illegal meat imports, so it would be good to hear from the Minister that the Government—not only Defra but across government—understand and will take action on the very real threats that have been raised by the amendments tabled and discussed in this group.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. I begin by saying, straightforwardly, that the importance of biosecurity and of securing our borders on biosecurity is vital. The Government make the commitment to ensure that we prevent contaminated goods entering this country, for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned—as indeed did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford.

I will start with the amendments that seek to ensure that the Border Security Commander has regard to specific threats, namely those posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is absolutely right that that will be a key issue for the Border Security Commander. I reassure my noble friend that the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports are implicitly included within the definition of threats to border security in Clause 3. The commander will and does work closely with colleagues in Defra and Border Force through his board to ensure that the strategic priorities for border security are tackled.

I remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001. In fact, I am old enough to remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 1967, when I was a child. I also remember—who can forget?—the BSE issues that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, dealt with as Agriculture Minister. My noble friend was the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland and I know, from sharing time with him, that he put a great emphasis on the issue of bushmeat and on biosecurity generally, for the very reasons that noble Members have raised: it has a financial cost, a health cost and a border security cost. Criminals will get involved in this if they see profit but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, also mentioned, people may bring back something from their holidays that they think is appropriate or they may have dropped a sandwich. We therefore need concerted efforts on organised biosecurity issues, but need also to be aware of the individual who breaches regulations.

I know that the National Farmers’ Union has recently written to the Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, asking for an increased focus on biosecurity issues, and he has been able to reassure them in some ways, including that sniffer dogs are operational at certain ports in the United Kingdom and that X-ray scanners at Dover are consistently used to scan vehicles that are selected as part of an intelligence-led model. There will continue to be a central focus on biosecurity by the Border Security Commander, working closely with Defra and Border Force colleagues, to ensure that we tackle the strategic priorities that noble Lords have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I will just come back on that—I do not mean that in any aggressive way. I certainly do not doubt the Government’s commitment on these issues. It is a matter of what is within the functions of the commander. The definition in Clause 3,

“‘border security’ means the security of the United Kingdom’s borders”,

does not take us a lot further—it is a bit circular. The Minister talked about “people”. I think that he said a “person” crossing the border. I am still not quite clear whether the security issues that are not about the physical crossing of the border come within the commander’s functions. That might be something we can discuss outside the Chamber to consider whether any further amendment would be worth tabling.

I am not yet clear about where the separations or divisions come—the answer being, of course, that it is all with the Government in some form or other. However, the functions of the commander and the scrutiny of Border Security Command require a clearer answer than the Minister may be able to give today.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Before my noble friend Lord Rooker responds, I again refer the noble Baroness to Clause 3(2). It says very clearly, and this is why it is generic, that:

“The Commander must from time to time issue a document (a ‘strategic priority document’) which sets out what, in the Commander’s view, are—


(a) the principal threats to border security when the document is issued, and


(b) the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions”.


That is a long-term proposal for a Border Security Commander to determine in the priority document that they are going to produce under this clause the strategic threats to border security. That would include, potentially, at any one time, biosecurity, cybersecurity, economic security and the issues of illegal immigration security that we are facing as a high priority at this moment.

I hope that Clause 3(2)(a) and (b) give the potential for that document to be produced. That document is going to be shared and discussed with the Home Secretary of the day. It will be produced later in an annual plan showing what is happening. That gives an opportunity for Members of both Houses to question, debate and discuss it at any time. If there was, for example, a glaring gap in biosecurity in that strategic document, it would be for Members of this House and the House of Commons to press Ministers on that. I am saying to Members today that it is a priority for the Government. It will be in the work of the Border Security Commander. The generic role set out in Clause 3(2) includes setting a strategic priority document.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed. As far as I am concerned, my noble friend has given a positive, clear, on-the-record response for which he can be held to account. That is what it is about. He has been quite clear, and he has not tried to shove it aside.

The amendment is about border security. In my remarks, I missed the opportunity, which I always try to take, to say that the unsung heroes of food safety in this country are environmental health officers. There is no question that they are unsung, and there are fewer of them than there used to be.

I want to close with one example of joined-up government, because it covers my noble friend’s position. My first role in this House was as a Home Office Minister. I had one year. Doing immigration, asylum and nationality was my day job, and the rest of the Home Office was the other bit. During that year, I spent one complete day at Gatwick and one complete day at Heathrow watching the transfer of particular flights that were coming in—they were the bushmeat flights. This was the Home Office in 2001, so we were joined up to that extent. They were both Saturdays. I am not going to mention the country the flights came from, but the result was that we slapped visas on them. The Home Office was aware of the situation because of what was being discovered, and it was thought appropriate that the Minister should have a Saturday there and a Saturday at the other place. I still occasionally read about people with bushmeat. I do not accept the cultural argument, by the way; it is out of bounds, as far as I am concerned. It is about food safety, it is illegal, and it is crucial that it is dealt with. The Home Office in 2001 proved that safety goes across government.

I understand that my noble friend is not even paid for the job he is doing at the moment, so I will not try to force him to spend a Saturday down at the airport, away from his family. He gave a first-class answer. I congratulate the NFU as well; I know that it pushed this issue, having started a campaign back in May to improve biosecurity. The more that we talk about it, the more likely we are to succeed in protecting the country. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful for the amendments tabled, because they have sparked a discussion on a range of issues.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I note that the Government will set objectives, will have policies on these areas and will, as they have already done, set out their proposals and plans to deal with these issues. We are establishing the Border Security Commander post to assist the Government in the effective co-ordination and delivery of those points. We have put in £150 million in this financial year to support that post. We have agreed with the SR, through the hard work of the current Border Security Commander, an additional £280 million over the three-year period. That is determined to deliver on the Government’s strategic objectives to secure our borders and to provide the security on all the issues that we discussed in the debate on the previous set of amendments.

There are wider issues, which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned, and which form part of the Government’s consideration under the immigration White Paper that they produced four or five weeks ago and presented to this House. It has masses of detail about the long-term issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, including the interpretation of Article 8. Clearly and self-evidently, we will examine the report that the JCHR—the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—has produced on those issues; it is a good, wide-reaching document and the Government will consider it and respond to it in due course.

This is, therefore, not the only tool in the box to address the wider issues and downstream challenges around why people are moving in the first place and seeking asylum through either illegal or irregular means. There are issues to do with the interpretation of Article 8, and there is a constant flow of activity in the Home Office assessing all the issues that the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Empey, mentioned.

I will turn my focus back to the amendments, which are about the Border Force Commander. The strategic priorities, which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, mentioned, are very clear. In Clause 3, we are trying to give great scope to the Border Security Commander to produce a plan to deal with the challenges that are discussed with the Home Secretary on a weekly basis and to deliver effective outcomes.

Since being in post, the Border Security Commander has, for example, struck new anti-smuggling action plan agreements with the G7 and bilateral agreements with Italy, Germany, Serbia and the Balkan states. He has increased UK operations with Europol, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned. He has essentially been the driving force behind the Calais group—France, Belgium, Holland, and the United Kingdom—in looking at what measures we need to take.

There are additional resources, and the noble Viscount rightly challenged us on how they are used. They have been used to date to employ additional people under Border Security Command initial direction, to support work on a range of issues. For example, over 200 people are working in a variety of areas on the border security strategy as a whole, and there is support for 100 new officers to deal with Border Security Command as a whole. That has now closed twice as many social media accounts as before, increased the cost of gang and boat engine packages, and supported over 80 ongoing investigations with the National Crime Agency. A whole range of things is going on now, and again, I hope that, with the legal framework in place in the Bill, there will be, as the Bill says, an annual strategy and an annual report to Parliament via the Home Secretary on the outcomes of these proposals and policies.

The group of amendments which was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel—again, they are perfectly legitimate questions to ask—set out effectively issues that are in the functions of the commander in Clause 3, including requirements for the commander to seek to maximise

“the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities relating to threats to border security”.

The first of these objectives is the very one that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned. The Government have been clear that preventing dangerous crossings and dismantling organised gangs that are facilitating those journeys is a top priority. Indeed, the work of the Border Security Command and its partners is now delivering results.

Just this month, a suspected organised crime boss and his associates were arrested for facilitating hundreds of individuals entering the UK illegally as part of a surge in law enforcement activity co-ordinated by the Border Security Command. The Government are working to restore order and control of the migration system in the wider ways that we have talked about with the noble Lord, Lord Empey. That is central. I welcome, in a sense, the agreement and understanding from the amendments, but it is central to the core proposals of the Border Security Command.

A further amendment would also allow Border Security Command to issue directions to partner authorities for specified purposes. I just do not think that the power to direct is required. In oral evidence sessions in the House of Commons, we heard from the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They welcomed and supported the role and collaboration to date with the Border Security Commander and the arrangements provided for in the Bill, which will reflect and respect the operational requirements of the various board members.

I know he is not here at the moment, but the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised the issue of operational responsibilities at Second Reading. We have to respect that, but there is a role for co-ordination and extra financial support and direction from the Border Security Commander centrally. Under Clause 5, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the commander in so far as it is reasonably practical for them to do so, and under Clause 3, partner authorities must have regard to the strategic priorities, which will have been endorsed and consulted on, supported by the Secretary of State and by the board, and in Clause 3(4)(b), the current wording in the Bill ensures that all parts of the system work coherently to tackle the very border security threats that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has raised in his amendment, while respecting the operational independence of the various partner authorities. The amendment as proposed would potentially undermine that valuable operational independence.

So I understand where the noble Viscount is coming from and the need to press on those matters—and I understand the need for the noble Viscount to intervene, which I will allow him to do.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

It is very generous of the Minister to interrupt his afternoon and his peroration to let me do so.

I asked the Minister just to give the Committee a bit more detail. He talked about some teams of people who were undertaking various different tasks. But what is the anticipated annual operating budget of the organisation, and what is the very approximate staff complement that is anticipated for the organisation once it is up and running?

He talked about various initiatives, saying that the Border Force Commander had done this and done that, all of which sounded very positive and laudable. But are we talking about the border commander’s organisation undertaking executive programmes: is it delivering some of these initiatives? The way it is portrayed in the Bill and the way the Minister has described it, the organisation’s individual will be co-ordinating but the actual delivery will be done through other partner agencies. Is that still the case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Border Security Commander has a co-ordinating but also a strategic directional role, so, in consultation with the various partners, he will be producing a plan which brings together various partners who are currently operating independently, some of whom are not even within the Home Office’s direct responsibility areas, because there are, as we talked about earlier on, biosecurity elements of Defra and others there, to effect a strategic plan for the three-year period of the SR, for which he has been given £280 million to determine how the plan is used and implemented from the SR settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 11 in this group is an amendment to my noble friend’s Amendment 10.

Before I get into the detail of it, I must support what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said in the previous group. They put their finger on one of the key issues: namely, that the Secretary of State cannot step back and abrogate her responsibility to set strategic priorities. Surely the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for setting the strategic priorities. It would be better for the Bill to say that the Secretary of State will publish the strategic priorities for the organisation, having been advised by the border commander and having consulted the commander and other relevant agencies. It seems quite a circular argument for the border commander to be invited to come up with their own strategic priorities and then set out how they intend to address them—there is an element of marking your own homework here. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say to the point about the strategic priorities coming from the border commander rather than from the Secretary of State. It may well be something we wish to return to.

The origins of Amendment 11 lie in an exchange I had with the Minister at Second Reading, to which he followed up with a letter. The question I had asked him was this: what is the Government’s understanding of the specific factors that drive desperate people to take their lives and those of their families into their own hands and undertake a sea crossing with, potentially, the peril of death or serious injury? Why would they come from at least one other safe country—generally France—or a series of safe countries they might have passed through? Why would they risk everything, including their lives and those of their families, to come specifically to the UK? What is it about the regulatory, commercial or cultural situation in the UK that causes people to come here?

The Minister was kind enough to provide me with a substantial letter, which I hope he will not mind me paraphrasing by saying that his answer was, “We don’t really know”. It was more complicated than that but that was the thrust of it. I think we should know and should be honest about the factors, whether they are to do with the support provided, the level of control we intend to exert over people who come here irregularly or illegally, or the organised crime gangs—all factors the Minister touched on—or whether it is also to do with the chances of deportation. I wonder whether the Minister can assist the Committee by telling us the average rate of deportation of people who have come here through illegal or irregular means or who have crossed the channel in small boats?

I believe there is another factor as well, which is the opportunity for irregular migrants to take on paid work, whatever the regulations say. I am sure the Minister is very well aware, for example, of the coverage on the front pages of national newspapers yesterday about people coming from government-funded hotels where they have been housed and undertaking work for some big companies—as a contractor, I suspect. We have to grapple with those factors and be honest about them. We need to tackle the demand side as well as the supply side. I appreciate that this Bill is very much about addressing the supply side, and quite rightly so, but it is incredibly important that we look at the specific demand factors that are driving people to risk their lives to come to the UK in preference to other European countries.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords. I will try to answer the noble Viscount immediately. It was very kind that he paraphrased my reply as “We don’t know”. A tadge unfair, I fear, but an opinion none the less. We do know about the many issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to on a regular basis—war, hunger and oppression—that drive people to leave their homes or force people out of their homes. There are many people who are criminally trafficked across Europe. There are many people who attempt to come to the United Kingdom because of simple things such as speaking English as opposed to other foreign languages or because of the nirvana promised to them by criminal gangs. There is a range of pull factors that we know about, and we are consistently assessing those.

The noble Viscount might be interested to know that, under the previous Government, in the years between January 2018 and March 2025, 94% of small boat arrivals had an asylum claim raised, and outcomes from those asylum claims varied. People from Afghanistan had 37% of asylum claims agreed, for people from Syria it was 99%, for people from Eritrea it was 86%, for people from Iran it was 48% and for people from Sudan it was 98%. There is a variety. That is because the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly continually raises in this House are very often push factors rather than pull factors. They are push factors from areas of high levels of poverty, war or other disruptive influences.

Our model has to be to try to smash the criminal gangs and to remove their ability to traffic effectively, for the reasons that we have debated all afternoon. In that, the role of the border commander is critical. The amendments that have been brought forward by His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench look at, first, specifying the frequency with which the Border Security Commander must issue a strategic priority document. The Border Security Commander can issue a strategic priority document to partner authorities setting out the principal threats to border security, but I want the Border Security Commander to have flexibility to update those priorities as and when threats evolve. The very changes that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have mentioned might well impact upon that. Under the terms of the amendment, the production of a document annually would not allow that to happen. I want it to be a fluid operation between the Border Security Commander and others.

Members have also asked who is setting the strategic priority. The framework we have set out in the Bill is clear: the Border Security Commander will be setting strategic objectives, having consulted a board that is established under the Bill, having consulted partner agencies which have operational responsibility—as mentioned—under the Bill, having discussed it with the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary, who will themselves have discussed it with other Ministers, and having produced clear evidence of what the pressures on border security are. The plan will then be produced. We are currently looking at the issues that I mentioned earlier—the operational delivery of that and the members of staff, and so on, downstream—about which I will write to the noble Viscount.

We have a £280 million resource for the next three years of the spending review, and we will be looking at how we do that when allocations are made later this year. However, I say to His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and other noble Lords who have raised these issues that the flexibility to produce a plan with the Border Security Commander under the strategic objectives set by the Government is critical.

Other amendments set out that additional information should be included in the strategic priority document. The Government are working hard to prevent dangerous sea crossings, to target smuggling gangs, to make sure that they do not put lives at risk and to address the factors that are driving illegal immigration from safe countries. The strategic policy document is issued to partner authorities and sets out the strategic priorities that they must have in exercising those functions. Again, I hope the noble Lord will reflect on the proposals in the Bill in due course because it is not clear how suitable the assessment set out in the amendment would be for such a document.

Amendment 12 aims to ensure that the strategic priority document issued by the Border Security Commander and the UK border strategy are supportive of each other. Again, border security is a fundamental part of the wider strategic approach to the border and strategic priorities for border security, which will help to drive the wider UK Government approach. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we coherently and sensibly convene activity across the whole UK border system. It is therefore not really plausible to imagine a situation whereby the commander’s priorities, setting consultation with the board, would be at odds with wider priorities set by other agencies. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide the grasp, coherence, drive and strategic forum for the exercise of these measures to deal with the very issues that we have all mentioned in this short debate.

I hope that helps regarding the amendments. We can return to these on Report if need be, but I hope that for the moment I have addressed the issues raised.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Goschen.

This short debate has brought to light a number of what we say are shortcomings in how the Government currently envisage the role and responsibilities of the commander, particularly with regard to the strategic priority document. We are told that it is central to the commander’s function and that it will help to shape the response to some of the complex and pressing threats to our border, yet it still seems a surprise that it need be issued only “from time to time”.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but I simply do not believe that it is a serious approach to a serious national challenge, when confidence in the system is fragile, to leave the frequency of such an important document so open-ended. For that reason, the clear solution is Amendment 9’s requirement to issue it annually. That is simply a minimum standard of accountability. It would not be excessive or difficult and, if the commander is to be held to their role, it would be a form of regularly reporting on the document.

Frequency is not the only issue, as has been said. As drafted, the document lacks substance. It offers no mandate to assess the effectiveness of the methods being used to deter illegal entry, reduce crossings or facilitate removals. Amendment 10 would address that gap directly. If the Government truly believe that the role will make a difference, they should have no hesitation in embracing clarity, direction and purpose in the remit of the commander.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I just want to add that the Employment Rights Bill is currently going through a lengthy procedure of discussion in this House. It is attempting to put down a whole range of measures which tackle some of the employment issues on illegal working that will potentially—going back to the noble Viscount’s point about pull factors—deal with that in a much more effective and strong way. I hope that, after 10 or 11 days in Committee and with Report to come, the noble Lord can reflect on that and see what support he can give to the measures in that Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will reflect very carefully on that. The amendments in this group, like the amendments in the previous group, are not about undermining the Government’s intentions; they are about giving them a credible, coherent mechanism to pursue and deliver them. That is the very reason I support Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goschen, and Amendment 12, which would ensure that the commander’s work is not carried out in isolation but is aligned with the UK’s border strategy. The lack of linkage between the commander’s priorities and the border strategy is, in our view, a missed opportunity. Amendment 12 would put that right.

If the Government are serious about border reform and want to be taken seriously on deterring crossings and improving removals, they must demonstrate a willingness to embrace the structure, purpose and accountability offered by the amendments. I simply urge the Government to listen to what we have proposed today and accept these changes in the spirit in which they are intended; that is, to ensure that the commander is not just another headline but a role that delivers real outcomes for the British people. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We have Amendment 16 in this group. It is indeed a probing amendment. I am a little amused that the noble Lord has just criticised the expansionist tendencies of this amendment, given that that is what some of his earlier amendments have tended to suggest.

Clause 3(5) tells us that “public authority” means

“a person with functions of a public nature”.

Clause 3 makes public authorities “partner authorities” for the purpose of the chapter. Across the public sector—not just this one—private organisations are contracted to provide services, so I am probing whether such organisations are within the definition. Does the commander have authority over them—and, if so, how far?—or is it that, as I have been arguing for the whole of today, the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for all this work? Of course, we know that the Home Office has contracted private sector organisations—to run asylum hotels, for instance—so my questioning is not totally theoretical.

I often worry that the Government are not always as good at procurement as one might like them to be—or, frankly, at enforcing contracts—so I hope that the private sector will not be put in an even stronger position in the sector. If it is, I for one would like to know. But this is a probing amendment, and I am not seeking to expand the territory.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again. I hope I can answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, immediately. As she outlined, her amendment seeks to probe whether private bodies carrying out public sector functions are included in the definition of “public authority” in Clause 3(5). I hope the clarification I can give her will be of assistance. It is as follows: private bodies carrying out public sector functions, such as the contractors working with Border Force, would fall under the definition of “public authority”. I hope that meets her probing amendment, but it is on the record that that is the position.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, again raised a number of amendments. Amendment 15 would require a definition of

“illegal entry to the United Kingdom”

to be included in Clause 3(5). Amendment 17 would require a definition of “sea crossings”. I say to him—and I hope he will reflect on this—that, in Clause 3(5), in the chapter, we have included the words “border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority”, and they have been explicitly defined due to their presence in other clauses in the chapter. My honourable friend the Minister in the House of Commons was clear that we do not want to put into the Bill issues that will be included in the strategic priority document or the annual report, to ensure that sufficient flexibility is retained to respond to the continually evolving threats to border security. If we were to accept the amendments that the noble Lord has proposed today, we would, by defining these terms, actually water down what is in Clause 3(5). “Border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority” are clearly defined terms in the chapter, giving the Border Security Commander the flexibility to address the issues of the day. I note a little shake of the head from the Opposition Front Bench. If the noble Lord remains unhappy, he should feel free to challenge. If he wants further clarification, I will try to give it to him. If he wants further further clarification, I will write to him, and if he feels that this does not meet the objectives that he has set, then we have the potential to discuss it at further stages of the Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope he recognises the constructive spirit in which these amendments have been brought. What we are seeking is legal certainty and legal clarity, and what these amendments show is that language matters. This is a Bill of great significance; it deals with powers of co-ordination, enforcement, and national security. The clarity of our definitions is not just a drafting preference; it is a legal and operational necessity.

I do not want to be repetitive about the two amendments, but we say that Amendment 15 would provide a clear legal anchor for the term “illegal entry” by referencing existing law under Section 24 of the Immigration Act. It is a small change, but it would give certainty to the commander and to those the commander is expected to co-ordinate. Amendment 17 would perform a similar function. It sits at the very heart of the public and policy debate. It is about scope and enforceability: if we are to disrupt these crossings, we must be clear in law as to what constitutes one. Ambiguity here invites confusion, in our view. If Ministers are serious about making the command structure work, then we say that these amendments clarify and improve the Bill. I urge the Government to think again about this, but on the basis of what has been said so far, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by Amendment 20 requiring a statement of

“the number of … gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action”.

As I understand it, that is very difficult to know. The characteristic of these gangs is that individual smugglers group and regroup. You have smaller fish who may be better known than the bigger ones. Obviously, the objective that is the subject of this amendment is exactly the right one, but I do not know that there could be any useful or meaningful reporting in quite the way that the amendment suggests. I am sorry not to be supporting it.

On Amendment 21, I note how important it is to have good data, whether or not the six headings here are precisely what the commander should be producing. The more general point—I will go on repeating it—is that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, not the commander. It is important to have full and accessible data much more frequently, and more up to date, than in an annual report published some time after the financial year to which the information relates.

I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that this is about accountability, but I do not agree—as he will have gathered rather tediously from me, and I am sorry about that—that the accountability is that of the director. It is that of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had another useful discussion, and I hope that I can address some of the issues that have been put before the Committee today. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, would create a requirement for the Border Security Commander to include within the annual report a range of statistics relating to the new offences created by the Bill, and wider relevant statistics in relation to irregular entrants who have arrived via a sea crossing and/or deportations.

The first of these seeks to include statistics on human trafficking in the annual report, while the second seeks to include further information on the number of people charged on a range of new offences included in the Bill. As currently envisaged, the annual report must state how the commander has carried out the functions of their office in the financial year and set out the commander’s views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set. The Bill makes it clear that, under its structures, a report will be laid before Parliament and published, providing both public and parliamentary accountability for the work of the Border Security Commander across all threats. The strategic priorities may change over time, as the threats evolve, and the commander would need to report against them.

The question at the heart of the amendments is: should we provide further statistics? In line with the statement of compliance with the code of practice for statistics, and as part of the Government’s big commitment to transparency, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on immigration, including the themes within the amendment, in existing regular publications. We already have, over and above any amendment that might have been potentially accepted on this issue, quarterly statistics on people coming to the UK, extensions of stay, citizenship, asylum, detentions and returns. The quarterly immigration statistics release presents final and authoritative statistics on small boat arrivals. The appropriate place for that data is within established Home Office publications.

It is helpful information; the noble Lord should look at it, if he has the opportunity to do so. For example, it tells me that the number of small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018 to 36,000 in 2024—a 120-fold increase. I can get those figures from information that is in the public domain already, without it going into the Border Security Commander’s annual report. I can tell the noble Lord from quarterly statistics already produced that 29,867 people were returned between the general election on 5 July last year and 18 May 2025; the statistics tell me this is a 23% increase over the previous Government’s performance. If the noble Lord wants me to go on, I can say that there is a whole range of statistics saying, for example, that since 2018, 94% of the people arriving in the UK on small boats have claimed asylum. Around three-fifths of these have received a substantive decision, but it has taken a long time to get there. One of the reasons that we have cancelled the Rwanda scheme—which will come up later in the Bill—is so that we can put resources into speeding up asylum claims and improving on those statistics.

The noble Lord’s amendment asks us to put those in the Border Security Commander’s annual report. They are in place and are there for all to see. I cited a couple of them now. They are produced quarterly, so I can give him figures for the performance of this Government and the last Government. The two are, dare I say it, incomparable in most areas, because this problem arose and was driven under the previous Government. Those statistics are there and are done in a proper, official way, and the Border Security Commander’s annual report is to show how he performs on that matter.

Through Amendment 23, the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, intend to reinforce the definition of sea crossings and ensure it is included in the commander’s annual report. I tried to explain on the previous group of amendments that we want to maintain flexibility in the annual report with this chapter, so I do not believe that amendment is necessary. But I want to reassure the noble Lord, in the spirit of the co-operation we self-evidently have in this discussion, that in producing the annual report, the commander will of course consider a range of evidence and data and will comment on how the strategic plan has been implemented with that data.

The noble Viscount raised the financial aspect of the commander’s annual report. The report is meant to be about his performance on and against the targets he has set. There is a place for financial accounts, but it is not in that annual report, in the view of the Government. He looks quizzically at me.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

The Minister was doing so well until he decided it would be a great moment to start beating up the Opposition. I think we are all on the same side on this. We share common objectives here and it has been a great, positive debate, so that is really not necessary. In so many of the comments that I make, it does not matter that we are sitting on opposite sides of the Committee.

To say that we are going to just talk about the outcomes without talking about the inputs is crazy. I will definitely come back to press the Minister further if he does not wish to accept my amendment. The noble Lord has come forward with a package of measures. We need to know what the ongoing costing is, and we need to be able to extrapolate as far as we can between the input and the output and whether that money would be better spent, for example, by the agencies that are being co-ordinated.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In the spirit of co-operation and the hand of friendship that the noble Viscount has reached out, I say that it is a valid challenge. There is a place for accounts and there is a place for reports on performance, but it is a valid challenge to which we will return in due course. I will certainly reflect on the points he has mentioned, which is the purpose of our discussion today.

I just wished to put the statistics on record because I did not wish to let down the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, or for him to think I am never going to be a bruiser again on these issues. Therefore, it is important occasionally to put some facts on the record. Those are not my facts; they are government statistics that go to the heart of the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about whether we include them in the annual report or, as we do now, produce them on a quarterly basis on a range of those measures.

I do not wish to let the noble Viscount think I have missed the other point he raised, about the £150 million this year for the cost of the Border Security Commander. I am sure he will be pleased to know that this was new money. Effectively, in being new money, it was savings from the money that was allocated for the Rwanda scheme, which never actually materialised once the current Government came into place. We have reallocated Rwanda resources to the Border Force and the Border Security Command. We have also reallocated it elsewhere to help speed up asylum system claims by recruiting additional staff.

Jumping ahead slightly to future clauses in the Bill, that is essentially part of the recalibration that the current Government undertook on election just after this time last year to make some real changes and to try to improve longer-term performance on the issues on which we both agree: to reduce illegal migration and to respond positively to irregular migration in due course.

The noble Viscount’s second amendment mentions the partner authorities who attend the commander’s board, who would be able to collaborate on the development of the annual reports. The commander will not create this report in isolation; it will be a collaborative effort, but the commander’s job, self-evidently, is to pull together an annual report that shows how they have performed against the objectives that have been set in the strategic priorities. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but we will reflect on those matters and we can return to them in due course.

I hope that I have answered those points, and I look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her contribution. She said that she was not able to speak at Second Reading, but she made a very pertinent point about the climate of trust—I think that was the phrase she used—and that the Government are just not believed. Confidence and trust in the system are absolutely imperative, and that is the basis of these amendments.

We again heard the Government’s claim that tackling organised immigration crime is a top priority. All we seek is the most basic evidence of that success. It is not about operational compromise, or disclosing sensitive intelligence or tactical information; it is simply about reporting outcomes: how many gangs have been dismantled? How many prosecutions have taken place? How many individuals have been detained or removed?

The Minister read out the subsection in Clause 4 setting out what the annual report must do. It says that the annual report must

“state how the Commander has carried out the functions of the Commander”

and

“set out the Commander’s views on … performance”.

These are absolutely intrinsic issues. It is not unreasonable—it is the bare minimum—simply to ask that data on performance is put into the annual report. The Minister mentioned various items about data that can be accessed, but we seek certain information—for instance, about the number of persons charged or convicted with offences under this very Bill—that does not exist yet. It will exist in due course.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are very keen to put into the public domain in due course the performance data that he is looking for. The question is about whether we put this requirement into the Bill.

I apologise for not mentioning the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, by name in my earlier response. It was an oversight on my part, and I apologise for that. I was trying to address the issues that she and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had raised as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench’s view on this is that we side with my noble friend Lord Jackson on the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. At their core, as others have said, the amendments would rewrite the structure of the offence in Clause 13 by placing the burden of proof for the test of reasonable excuse squarely on the prosecution. The implications of the change would be significant—I will come back to the law in a moment—as it would dilute the seriousness with which we treat those who are convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.

Let us be absolutely clear about what Clause 13 addresses. It addresses the supply of forged documents, false identity papers and materials designed to facilitate illegal entry into the UK. Those are not minor infractions; they are serious crimes that underpin the business models of trafficking gangs, enable the circumvention of border controls and directly endanger lives. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that, if an individual is found supplying such items, it should be for them to demonstrate that they had a legitimate reasonable excuse.

I would suggest—it has been some time since I practised criminal law—that that is not some obscure or novel principle. Of course, the usual legal position is that it is for the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. But it is not unusual to reverse the burden of proof on to an accused in some circumstances. It reflects well-established frameworks in other serious areas of law, most notably in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in firearms legislation and in the Companies Act, where it is for an accused director to prove that all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid committing an offence.

In legislation on firearms and the misuse of drugs, the burden of establishing a lawful or innocent reason rests with the person accused of being in possession of or supplying the prohibited article. So, this is not an unusual path to take, and to shift the burden back to the prosecution, as these amendments would do, would make it harder to secure convictions, weaken the deterrent effect of the law and send precisely the wrong message at a time when we face record levels of illegal entry and organised criminal facilitation across our borders.

The public expect us to ensure that the law acts as a meaningful deterrent to those who seek to undermine it. This group of amendments would not do that. It would make it easier for those facilitating unlawful entry to escape liability and place an unnecessary an inappropriate burden on prosecutors, who are already contending with highly complex cases. Let us not forget that those convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime are not passive actors but deliberate enablers of lawbreaking. To demand that the prosecution proves not only the supply but the absence of any reasonable excuse would be to fundamentally misread the nature of the offence and the damage that it causes.

This goes to the heart of the problem that we have debated all afternoon: the people we are talking about are organised criminals who make money by endangering the lives of those they profess to help. It is not the time to rewrite what is, in my view, a long-standing legal norm in a way that would weaken enforcement. It is time to uphold the seriousness of the crime and ensure that our legal tools are effective in tackling it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this has again been a useful discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendments to allow it. I confess I find myself in a strange position before the Committee where I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said from the Front Bench. In fact, I wondered whether they had a secret leaked copy of some of my notes, because the points they made are extremely important and vital.

I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. He asked whether someone would be arrested on a beach in France because they rolled up with a dinghy. I assure him, and I hope he will know this from his police experience, that, in practice, these will be intelligence-led, targeted investigations by authorities as a whole of those suspected of being connected with organised crime networks involved in people smuggling and criminal activity. It is not the intention of this Bill that authorities would turn up on a beach in France, find someone paddling in the sea with a recreational leisure facility and arrest them. It would be a targeted approach, which backs up the points that the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron, made. It is about tackling organised criminals.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

I did not understand the extraterritorial provisions in this Bill that would make this British law applicable in France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are working in co-operation with the French authorities to look at a range of issues to do with that point. We are having further discussions with the French on the steps that they can take. This is about the supply and handling of articles used for criminal purposes and the collection of information on criminal activities. It will be undertaken in targeted operations. It will not, in the way in which he said, catch individuals who have innocent uses of material that is covered by the Bill.

The noble Lord will note that there is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses in Clause 13 to ensure that those acting in good faith, such as those carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm, or those working with humanitarian organisations, are safeguarded. That goes to the very point that the noble Viscount mentioned; I will give him chapter and verse on those issues and some concrete examples after this debate, rather than make them up.

On Clause 13(3)(b)(i) and (ii), there is a clear intention to make sure that those from humanitarian organisations who are supporting people are safeguarded. Adding the further test would shift the burden of proof by requiring the prosecution to disprove any claimed reasonable excuse, which would make it harder to secure convictions against dangerous facilitators. If, as the noble Baroness has suggested, we were to add the “without reasonable excuse” qualification, we would risk weakening the core purpose of the Bill, which is to enable law enforcement officers to detect and disrupt serious offences. I cannot accept the points that she made. By preserving these provisions, we will provide judges and prosecutors with a solid starting point that is aligned with our international obligations. I realise this is difficult, but the existing text of Clauses 13 to 16 achieves the right balance, ensures that legitimate activity is protected, and maintains the strength and support of enforcement as a viable UK policy. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments for the reasons that I have mentioned.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I had asked the Minister about compliance with Article 31.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s report has been very helpful. We need to look at that issue, and we will respond to his report in short order. I cannot give him those details today, but I will ensure that they are dealt with in due course.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. Just, I hope, to bring a little clarity to the latter discussion between my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Lord, Lord German, as I read it, Clause 13, “Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”, sets out in its first subsection the offence, and it does so neatly separating the actus reus, the actual act—here, offering to supply a relevant article—from the mens rea, which is knowledge or suspicion. Subsection (2) goes on to state:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they had a reasonable excuse”.


It was subsection (2) that we debated at length on the previous day in Committee on this Bill, and it is at that point that the burden of proof shifts to the defence to prove their defence under the subsection.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for bringing these amendments. It has proved to be a very stimulating debate. As others have said, I have an immense amount of respect for him, given his long and distinguished career, and I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened very carefully to what they both said. I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the amendments that they have brought, however. They seek to alter the mens rea principle in Clauses 13, 14 and 16, by replacing the current standard of knowledge or suspicion with one of “intent” in the case of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or “belief” in the case of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It does not seem to me to be in dispute that these amendments, if passed, would introduce a higher and more complex threshold for the mental elements of the offences, thereby raising the requirements for securing conviction and making it significantly more difficult to hold to account those involved in supplying equipment for illegal crossings and other articles used in the facilitation of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. In doing so, they would risk creating precisely the kind of ambiguity that organised criminal gangs thrive on.

I think it is important to remind ourselves what this clause is designed to address. It is aimed at those who provide the tools that make dangerous, illegal crossings possible: those who supply forged passports, false work permits, dinghies and outboard motors that fuel the people-smuggling trade. These individuals are the logistical agents of criminal networks responsible not only for undermining the security of our borders but for endangering lives.

Let us not forget that more than 20,000 people have now crossed the channel in small boats in 2025 alone and, tragically, some have died in the attempt, fundamentally because the journeys are facilitated by those who care more about profit than human life. If we are to be serious about tackling this, we must ensure that the legal framework is as robust and usable as possible. If we replace the standard of knowledge or suspicion with intention or belief, prosecutors will be forced to demonstrate not merely that a person knew or suspected that their goods would be used for immigration crime but that they positively intended or actively believed that they would be used as such. That is a much higher bar, and one that would inevitably lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions and fewer disruptions to these dangerous criminal networks.

The very thorough report from the Joint Committee said that the current standard in the Bill is a low threshold compared to, for example, intentional recklessness. We note that comparable precursor terrorism offences have a higher mental element, requiring intention to commit or assist in the commission of terrorist acts. I think this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, correctly said, these terrorism offences are not precursors and so are not comparable.

The mens rea test of knowledge used in this Bill—the one that the noble Lord and the JCHR have criticised—is the same standard that is used in offences under the Immigration Act 1971, albeit about entry and not the supply of articles. Section 24B(1) of that Act states that:

“A person who … requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and … knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence”.


The operative word here is “knowingly”. This is the same standard that is applied to the offences in Sections 24(A1), (C1), (D1) and (E1), and Sections 24A, 25 and 25A, of the Immigration Act 1971. In short, existing immigration offences all use the test of knowledge to determine the mental element of an offence. It is therefore entirely consistent for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16 to use the same test.

These are not minor procedural safeguards. These are the tools that we need to dismantle the infrastructure of people smuggling. The law should be a shield for the vulnerable, not a loophole for the criminals who exploit them. We have to construct a strong legal framework, not one that is diluted and less able to protect vulnerable people as a result. My noble friend Lord Harper made the point very powerfully that this is about creating a deterrent. We need to confront this threat with a strong legal arsenal, not a weakened one. We should not be inserting language into this Bill that makes it harder to prosecute those who supply the means for deadly journeys. These are serious offences with serious consequences, and the law must reflect that seriousness. In this instance, I oppose these amendments.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling their amendments. They have stimulated a discussion on important points that the Committee needs to consider. I am also grateful to noble Lords for attending this debate when such powerful alternative options are available not 200 metres away—I will use metres instead of my normal yards—where the President of the Republic is addressing both Houses of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord German, tempts me to discuss what the President of the Republic is currently saying. Our relationship is very strong. There are a number of issues on which we are expected to make positive statements in the next couple of days, and we are working very closely on re-intensifying our activities on the northern coast. I will allow further discussions to take place prior to any announcements from this Dispatch Box about the outcome of any discussions between the Prime Minister, the Government and the President of the Republic. I am sure that we will return to those points when the discussions have taken place in a positive framework—as they will.

I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I welcome the JCHR report that was published on 20 June and thank the JCHR for its work. As the noble Lord knows, I have given commitments that the Government will respond in due course. It is worth putting on the record that all measures in this Bill are considered to be compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Government are fully committed to human rights at home and abroad. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. We will respond to those issues in due course, but I wanted to set that out at the beginning, because it is important and part of the framework that the noble Lord has brought forward.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. He started by giving a couple of caveats. Like him, I am a product of a council estate and proud of it, and like him, Latin passed me by at my comprehensive school—I think some people did it, but it passed me by. That does not mean that we cannot address the substance of the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have made. These important issues deserve full merit and consideration.

Amendments 31 and 41, on changing the mens rea in Clauses 13 and 14 from “knows or suspects that” to “intends that, or is reckless as to whether”, follow the findings from the JCHR. Those findings have unanimous support, and we will return to them in due course. In bringing those amendments forward, the CT-style power is now more in line with the counterterror legislation, which is what the noble Lord is intending. Reasonable suspicion is the same threshold as for the offence in Sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In fact, Section 57 does not have a “reasonable excuse” defence; instead, a person must show that

“his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”.

The Section 57 and 58 offences contain no more safeguards when compared with the offences in Clauses 13 and 14.

The mens rea of the current drafting of the clause is designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster to disrupt these criminal smuggling gangs—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has alluded to. Day in, day out, these ruthless people smugglers put vulnerable people on boats in the channel or into the back of refrigerated lorries, not caring if they live or die. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned, people have died as a result. Changing the mens rea to require law enforcement to show intention or recklessness would place undue pressure on those on the front line of tackling organised immigration crime and would slow down the response to stopping these evil criminals undertaking their actions. It is right that we do whatever we can to support law enforcement in tackling these criminals at the earliest possible stages of criminality. For that reason, disappointing as I know it will be to the noble Lord, I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments 32, 42 and 53 seek to change the mens rea for these offences from suspicion to belief. For the supplying and handling of articles and collection of information offences, amending this threshold would significantly raise the bar for enforcement. That is a point made by His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench, along with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Harper and Lord Green of Deddington. I find myself on occasion in company that I am not normally in, but it is right that, if noble Lords are right and make a sensible case, that support is welcome—as it is on this occasion.

A “suspicion” threshold allows for earlier, preventive action, which is a core feature of the legislation. It is designed to enable authorities to disrupt organised crime at the preparatory stage, while still requiring a proper investigation into an individual’s activity, and not in any way damaging a defence’s ability to put up a defence to the prosecution’s case in due course. The shift from suspicion to belief would narrow the scope of these clauses, undermine their preventive purpose, reduce the chance of successful prosecutions and place a greater strain on investigative resources in the first place.

It is important to note that the “knows or suspects” threshold is not novel. It is well established in UK criminal law, especially in regimes aimed at early intervention. For example, under Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, professionals commit an offence if they

“know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering”

and fail to make a disclosure.

Similarly, Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 criminalises failure to disclose information where someone “believes or suspects” it might be useful to prevent terrorism. In both the Proceeds of Crime Act and the anti-terror legislation, the mental thresholds are designed to trigger preventive action and have been consistently upheld in the courts as proportionate and compatible with Article 6 and Article 7 of the ECHR. I go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned: namely, that the offences in the Bill serve a preventive purpose. They are not about punishing people after harm has occurred but are instead about stopping harm happening at all.

I will also speak to the concerns that the current offences might criminalise those who are acting innocently or for humanitarian reasons. Each of the relevant clauses includes the reasonable excuse defence, which is non-exhaustive and allows courts to consider the full context of the person’s action. Any good defence would bring forward those defences if, again, the thresholds were passed by the police and the CPS for bringing prosecutions under any legislation that was ultimately passed by both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would expect me to defend the Bill. We have taken judgments on the legislation and taken legal advice internally in the Home Office, and we think that that is a reasonable legislative framework for the operations that we are discussing. We will discuss in later clauses the scrapping of the Rwanda Act and that preventive deterrent, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide some measures of deterrence and of punishment for offences that aid and assist the dangerous illegal crossings for individuals who, in being trafficked, face very serious injury or potential death.

I want to be clear that these powers are not designed for indiscriminate use. Investigations under these provisions will be intelligence-led and focused on enforcement activity on serious organised crime gangs and their enablers, not on the migrants fleeing persecution or those acting with humanitarian motives. I am not giving the Committee theoretical reassurances: these are reflected in how this will operate. The forces trying to stop the criminal gangs will use any legislation that this House passes to ensure that we act as a deterrent but also, therefore, target those individuals who have committed offences under this legislation. They will have the potential to put forward a defence; the prosecution will therefore have the potential to chop that defence to bits and prove that the actions were malicious, as under the legislation before us.

In summary, these clauses contain strong safeguards, including a list of non-exhaustive reasonable excuses, to protect those acting legitimately and in good faith. These safeguards combine with the investigatory discretion that is at the heart of the police’s focus on the real potential criminals in this process, and with the prosecutions that are taken through the CPS and the prosecutions test for charging decisions to be made. Therefore, in my view, the enforcement is targeted, fair and proportionate.

I hope noble Lords will reflect on those points as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill. I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to reflect on what I have said and to consider whether I have convinced them. That is a matter for them to consider in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept their amendments. I assure the noble Lord that the report he has produced will be examined and we will give a full response in due course. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this group of amendments and for the thorough response he has given to your Lordships in Committee this afternoon. For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes the overall aims of the Bill—to deter organised crime and prevent the loss of life at sea. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure there is a legislative framework in place to help eradicate this dangerous criminality. All of us who have spoken in the debate today are agreed about that.

The issue comes down to one of judgment about whether it is preventive, whether it is a deterrent and whether it will really make any difference to those who will anyway try to break these laws. Are we doing the right things to combat this criminality? I do not know all the answers to that any more than the Joint Committee on Human Rights does, but I am grateful for what the Minister said about the importance of the report the committee produced and many of the questions we have rightly raised.

In parentheses, I am glad that organisations such as Liberty take these issues as seriously as they do. They gave very valuable evidence to the committee during its inquiry. You do not have to always agree with the positions of NGOs or groups to know that they are part of the civic response to issues of this kind. We are very fortunate to have such organisations in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the fundamental concern that we have with all the amendments in this group is about their impact on the capacity of the Government to deter crossings in the first place, and it is our view that they dilute that capacity. We need to make it more difficult for smugglers and facilitators to operate, not easier. We need to send a message that Britain is cracking down on this behaviour, not making it easier to get away with. If we want to properly engage with this issue, we need to work with our legal and judicial authorities to give them the power to tackle this challenge head on, not tie them with further restrictions, which would make addressing this grave issue even more difficult.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his comments. I do not think there will be very much difference between us on this, and he has made some very strong points which I may echo in my remarks to the Committee.

I just want to re-emphasise three points which are important to the consideration of these amendments. First, the gangs are the targets of the Government’s action, not the people who are seeking asylum or refugee status, or even the people being trafficked without either of those two issues being the reason. The gangs are the targets.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made much reference to the Joint Committee report on the Bill, a copy of which I have for ease of understanding. I just reaffirm to him that it is the Government’s intention to respond to that report prior to Report. Some of the issues that he is bringing forward as amendments to the Bill are recommendations from the report, but we want to examine the report and give a full response to it before Report. So he will have the opportunity to examine the Government’s response prior to tabling any amendments on Report.

I noted, just out of interest, that there were, I think, 12 Divisions among members of the committee during its consideration of the report on Wednesday 18 June, so there was never unanimity even within the committee on what it should say. Therefore, it is even more important that the Government examine all those concerns and reflect on the 12 Divisions that took place, as well as the unanimity in the report that was finally produced after that. It is important that I say that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I recall that I was keen to tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that in fact paragraphs 1 to 52 had been agreed unanimously. There were Divisions in the report—I mentioned that—but the Minister will be pleased to know that the Labour members of the committee voted in favour of it to a man and woman.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always pleased to know what my comrades in arms in both Houses have done, and it is important that the Government reflect on all points of view. I simply make the point that there will be a response to the committee’s report prior to Report, and those nuances will be examined as part of the discussion.

The third point that the Government want to put on record—I have said this in earlier discussions—is that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the measures in the Bill support that aim and are compatible with UK human rights obligations. That leads directly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German. Those are the three important principles: gangs are the target; we will respond to the report; and we believe we are compliant.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful for the forbearance of the Minister. While he is in a pensive mood, will he confirm that there is a possibility, at least, that the Government’s current review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was announced on 30 March, may well be concluded by the time that we get to Report or Royal Assent to this Bill, and would potentially feed into any further amendments that the Government brought forward?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government are reviewing the issue of Article 8, but intend to do so in a way that examines judicial discretion on Article 8 and potentially looks at how we can improve performance on that issue. It does not mean that we will be withdrawing from Article 8, or indeed from any aspect of the convention. I think it is important that consideration is given to those issues.

If I may, I turn directly to the amendments before the Committee today. I start with Amendments 33 and 38, which seek to add the requirement that one can be prosecuted under these offences only if an individual derives financial or material benefit from engaging in the offence. These offences, as I said, target criminal gangs at the early planning stages, when financial or material gain is often not yet evident. For the very reasons that a number of noble Lords have mentioned, introducing the requirement in the clauses for gain would significantly constrain law enforcement’s ability to intervene early and disrupt organised crime groups before a crossing occurs or money changes hands. Given the complexity of cash flows in these criminal cases, it is impractical to exempt those without apparent financial or material gain, and doing so would shift the burden of enforcement to prove gain, undermining effective prosecution.

Additional amendments to this clause do not take into account the wide range of complex agreements that might be considered when engaging in these events—for example, substantial benefits in kind for engaging in the activity—and with such amendments, people would never be guilty of an offence. Again, these are complex issues, and for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned, there will be continued pressure, and it will be continually ramped up. Even now, I can update the noble Lord, Lord German, that the President of France has made reference to the fact that we need to have international co-operation in his address to both Houses a few minutes ago, and that there will again be consideration of joint action on the criminal gangs, for the very reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Green of Deddington, mentioned, because it is a nationally important issue that needs to be resolved and there will be increasing pressures.

I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who moved the amendment, that I do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate, particularly given the life-threatening risks posed by people smuggling, for his amendments to be accepted. They would undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to examine and stop. Where there is evidence of involvement of organised criminal activity, where lives are endangered and where our borders are undermined, those individuals would rightly be liable for prosecution, regardless of whether financial or material gain can be demonstrated.

There are going to be pressures: the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned them clearly. It is an important issue—I cede that to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In order to deal with these issues, we need to have some potential powers of criminal action, and I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, from the Opposition Front Bench.

Turning to Amendments 203, 35, 44 and 57, Amendment 203 would add the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16, as well as the offence of illegal entry under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, to Section 31 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999. This section currently protects refugees from being punished for certain actions that they may have to take to reach the UK. Amendments 35, 44 and 57 would similarly make it difficult to prosecute an individual were they to engage in this crime and seek to claim refugee status. Those are the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to, which are keen issues that the Committee needs to consider.

I just emphasise again that these offences are targeted not at refugees but at the vile people smugglers. The amendments would provide a potential defence to individuals, even if the commission of the offence had nothing to do with conduct that was necessary to arrive in the UK. As such, an individual could be absolved from all sorts of behaviour, including engaging in offences before arriving in the UK, creating a loophole for anybody who wished to commit those offences. I reassure the Committee that care has been taken by officials in the Home Office, with ministerial support, to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs but do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by these criminal smuggling gangs.

Each clause has a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, including one for those acting on behalf of an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services, and those intending to act in the rescue of a person in danger. Indeed, Clause 15 contains a carve-out of humanitarian items that cannot be considered under Clauses 13 and 14, plus carve-outs under Clause 16 for academics, journalists, rescuers and those seeking to provide those humanitarian services that are necessary. These safeguards, when combined with investigatory discretion in prosecutions and the public interest test for charging decisions, ensure that enforcement is targeted and proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I understand the point that the Minister is making. The JCHR report actually used the term “hygiene kits”, and I did not understand what those might be. They sound a little bit like the complimentary items you might get in plastic wrapping that you cannot undo in in a hotel. Would the Minister agree that we might have a discussion about this? It would require regulations to change the list of articles in Clause 15. It would be far better if we could talk about this as a sensible, non-political point and get it into the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that this offence criminalises not specific articles but those who supply. I do not see a realistic scenario in which items mentioned in Amendment 51A, when used for their intended purposes, could be used in connection with an offence under Sections 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act and therefore fall within scope of this offence. However, I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment. There are legal safe- guards, and we can reflect on this and have a discussion around it. I hope she recognises that the points I have made are equally valid, and that she does not move her amendment. We can examine this issue outside of the Committee.

I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments. Once we have responded to the report, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, can return to any of these issues on Report.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to this long list of amendments. I apologised earlier to the Committee that, inevitably, it was going to take time to get through them all.

We are agreed about one thing. The Bill is there to target those who are profiting from organised crime. There is no disagreement in the House about this. It is not a binary choice between the victims or the profiteers. The people they are exploiting need to be protected, but at present, there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of these offences. Again, we are agreed about that; how we do it is what matters. It is the role of committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise these things in detail—even issues such as hygiene kits. That came up as an amendment in the committee from one of its members, who said that the Government should at least examine this. It is on page 67 of the report, which details amendment 8, which inserts “hygiene kits” in Clause 15, thereby extending the list of included items.

I am grateful to the Minister for his responses to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti. This issue can be looked at outside of our proceedings. I will take away the points he has made, and those of all noble Lords who have participated in this excellent debate. I will make a couple of brief remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked a lot about the international agreements that have been entered into. Our duty is to comply with those. They are living documents, open to challenge and amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in pressing the Government, as I have done previously, to let us know as soon as possible, before Report, what their thinking is on Article 8 of the ECHR.

It was not just the ECHR that I referred to in these amendments. We also referred to the protocol against smuggling and Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, published in 2005, to which we are a signatory. These are important questions that we must always benchmark our actions here against. It is not that we are caught in a trap of international agreements; we, as a nation, have entered into them, and they are obligations we must live up to.

As far as the interpretation of the courts is concerned, my noble friend Lord Faulks made a very good point. Just as there needs to be further training—for instance, in lower-tier tribunals, a point we have discussed previously—it is not beyond the ability of our judges to give direction on many of these international conventions, which all of us are very familiar with anyway. Regarding Article 8, the Danish Government and others would not normally be regarded as hostile to international action. Donald Tusk was one of the signatories of the email that the noble Lord, Lord German, referred to earlier—it had no destination but caused quite a lot of controversy inside the Council of Europe and the European Court. It has provoked a debate, which was overdue, on whether that interpretation of Article 8 is correct. We all welcome that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we should go after the people who are monetarising this issue. She is right. She is also right that we have had a fine tradition in this country. She said that it was the world’s apology for the Holocaust to introduce the European Convention. A lot of other factors were involved there, but we all know that British lawyers, British politicians and the Conservative Party leadership at that time were deeply committed to the creation of European scaffold to govern some of these questions. Times have changed, and some of the challenges are different. That is not a reason for walking away from our obligations. It is a reason for standing together with others who want to make sense of these things, so that we protect those who are at risk and ensure that we go after those who are acting in a criminal manner.

I will take back to the Joint Committee the points the Minister has made. I am grateful that he will respond before Report. That will give us a chance to decide on amendments of a similar nature, or others which work in the eyes of the Government. We can continue to discuss this outside Committee, and whether it is possible to bring them back. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, and in conclusion, if we are to deter crossings and illegal entry into this country, surely we do not want to construct a legal system in which acting to facilitate crossings, even of a close family member, is somehow excusable. As we on these Benches have been clear, we need to approach this issue robustly and carve out defences for those who engage in and facilitate this. Let us not forget: criminal activity would directly undermine this capacity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again for the amendments that have been tabled and for the approach of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in relation to them. Again, I think there will be many areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has responded to the debate today.

I reassure noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Dubs, that care has been taken to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs and do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by them. I have said that in other groups, I may say it again in further groups, and I am saying it again in this group: that is the target for government action.

Amendment 46 seeks to amend Clause 14 to ensure that individuals are not criminalised for handling items relating to their own journey, provided they did so solely for personal use and received no financial gain. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that Clause 14 already provides a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses; cases can be assessed individually; and prosecutors will consider the public interest as well as specific guidance relating to immigration crimes, including whether there is clear evidence of a credible common-law defence of duress or duress of circumstances, and whether the immigration offence was committed as a necessary part of a refugee’s journey to the United Kingdom. That will all be done before pursuing charges, with the clear intent—going back to my noble friend Lord Dubs—of targeting smugglers and not those who are exploited by them.

There is a list of humanitarian items that are carved out from these provisions. Items outside this list that facilitate organised immigration crime are easily shared, taken or given to others to hold, further risking creating loopholes, as items used in organising immigration crime can easily be transferred or misrepresented as for personal use. That again goes to the very heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which is that enforcement would be significantly more difficult if the proposed amendments were accepted. These offences are designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster at the preparatory stages of an offence, potentially saving lives at sea and in the back of lorries. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the amendment, which would hamper that objective.

Amendments 46 and 55 aim to add a financial gain element to the “reasonable excuse” defence. Again, I respectfully oppose the amendments. These offences target criminal gangs at an early planning stage when financial gain is not necessarily yet evident. Introducing a requirement in the clauses for financial gain would significantly constrain law enforcement’s ability to intervene early and disrupt organised gangs before a crossing occurs and before money changes hands.

Again, there is complexity in cash flows in these criminal cases, and it is impossible and impractical to exempt those without clear financial gain. Doing so would shift undue burden on to law enforcement to prove gain and would undermine effective prosecution. That would not be appropriate or proportionate, particularly given the life-threatening risks we have seen in the channel, where people smuggling is present. It would also undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to facilitate. Where there is evidence of involvement in organised criminal activity, such as facilitating illegal crossings, through the commission of these offences, prosecution should be possible regardless of whether financial gain can be shown.

I turn to Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Again, I share common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on these matters. Amendment 51 proposes adding phones and chargers to the list of exempt items in Clause 15. Clauses 13 and 14 do not criminalise specific items; they target the supply or handling of items with knowledge or suspicion that they will be used in immigration crime.

The key issue remains intent. Everybody in the Committee today will recognise that phones are commonly used by smuggling gangs to co-ordinate crossings. Law enforcement agencies must retain the ability to act when such items are knowingly supplied for criminal purposes. A blanket exemption would create a significant loophole and weaken our ability to disrupt smuggling operations. Mobile phones are used to organise criminal gangs and therefore it is not practical or feasible to exempt them from the proposals in the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for speaking to Amendments 50 and 62 tabled by my noble friend Lord Browne. The amendments aim to exclude the offences from being considered a “particularly serious crime” under the 1951 refugee convention. The offences would be considered as particularly serious crimes—this is an important point for my noble friend—only if the sentence reaches the 12-month threshold. A court would have to consider all the circumstances of the offence in detail. If it imposed a sentence of more than 12 months, it is right that that is treated as particularly serious. The individual can still show that they are not a danger to the community.

This year alone—this goes to the heart of all the amendments—there have been 14 deaths at sea. I cannot agree that taking part in and providing means and methods for vulnerable people to risk their lives at sea in increasingly overloaded and poor-quality vessels and in the back of transit lorries should not be considered a serious crime. Amendments 50 and 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne aim to exclude those offences as being considered particularly serious under the 1951 refugee convention.

I reassure my noble friend that there is a minimum sentencing requirement for the offence to be categorised as a particularly serious crime. It is right that this offence be treated as a particularly serious crime if the sentence imposed by the court is of at least 12 months, as I just mentioned, as provided by Section 62 of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002. The court will be able to consider carefully whether the offence is appropriate when imposing such a sentence. Also, it is still open to an individual to demonstrate that they did not constitute a danger to the community for the purposes of Article 33(2), thereby retaining protection against the matter being brought before them.

Amendment 56 proposes a statutory defence for those researching a journey for a close family member. Proving close family relationships is very complex and, I contend, is handled best on a case-by-case basis. Clause 16 already includes a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, and each case is assessed individually. Prosecutors—this is key and we have discussed it in earlier groups—will consider the public interest before pursuing charges, with the clear intent of targeting smugglers, not those exploited by them. This is a common theme running through all my responses to the groups of amendments to date—the aim of the UK Government, in co-operation now with authorities from other nations, is to target the smugglers, not those exploited by them.

Amendment 51B would require the Secretary of State to consult organisations assisting asylum seekers before making additions to the list of carved-out articles under this legislation. I know that this is a well-meaning and well-intentioned proposal, but it is not necessary or appropriate in the context of this clause. The articles for use in immigration crime offences concern the prevention of immigration crime and provide the opportunity to act quickly before lives are lost at sea and in the back of refrigerated lorries.

Clause 15 provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain items as carved out from this offence and the option for the Secretary of State to add to this list, but not to remove them without going through full parliamentary process. If we had formal consultation with external organisations before decisions could be made to add an item to the carve-out, that could introduce additional bureaucracy that would delay urgent action.

As noble Lords will know, immigration crime is dynamic and moving. We have seen this weekend how that dynamic movement can take place. The methods used by those who seek to exploit vulnerable individuals are evolving rapidly and the Government must retain the ability and flexibility to respond swiftly and decisively. I assure the Committee that there will be circumstances where, timing and circumstances permitting, we will always want to engage with charitable and voluntary organisations on these changes as appropriate. However, where lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I want to ensure that the objective of saving lives is paramount.

I hope I have answered the points raised by the Committee. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response but hope he will withdraw his amendment, and that noble Lords will reflect on what has been said.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. I understand the ambition he is setting out: that we are going for the smugglers, not the refugees. The problem is that the Bill, as we have been discussing, does not give us that definition clearly up front. In other words, what the Minister has been saying and his intention—I absolutely agree with him—need to be clearly somewhere or other in the Bill.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that he read out the first part of my amendment and then skipped over the second part, which is connected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady May, raise some interesting questions that I hope the Government will be able to address.

Modern slavery is of course an extremely serious issue. As the recent report from the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking—which is most ably chaired by my noble friend—made clear, the effect that this brutal trade can have on the people involved is truly harrowing. It is right that the Government take this opportunity to outline how they will incorporate protections for those who are acting under duress of slavery into the immigration system. I welcome my noble friend’s amendment in so far as it provides the Government with an opportunity to address this important issue.

However, I want to raise a cautious concern about one particular aspect of the amendment, which is that the protection would apply only once someone’s status as having acted under the duress of slavery had been established. I understand that determining this status would involve going through the national referral mechanism, which, as noble Lords across the Committee will be well aware, faces severe backlogs. Not only that but, as the UN themselves has highlighted, far fewer foreign applicants under the NRM actually have a decision made in their favour, suggesting that immigrants are increasingly applying to the NRM on the basis that this will delay any decision to remove them, rather than because they have genuine grounds for a claim. That raises the question of whether the amendment would risk creating another loophole and another incentive for those crossing in small boats to delay any decision on their application in the full knowledge that the NRM mechanism already is severely delayed and backlogged.

It is the duty of the Government to seek to protect those who are under duress of slavery. As I have said, the amendment might risk creating a considerable loophole that could be easily exploited by bad actors. That is not to say that I do not support the intent behind the amendment, but I will be paying close attention to what the Minister has to say on this point.

On Amendment 49, we agree that this is an important provision and that it makes complete sense to be assured that articles will be both protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used and referred to in any future case. As my noble friend has already alluded to, my understanding is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers will already cover this, and that if any seized articles were lost or damaged then that would perhaps be a disciplinary matter for the officer involved. We therefore question whether a protection in the Bill in the form of this amendment is necessary, but the point that my noble friend raises is an important one. We will join her in seeking strong assurances from the Minister that these articles will be protected and kept in a condition that will allow them to be used in the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for tabling these amendments and instigating this discussion. I am grateful for the efforts that she took as Home Secretary, all those years ago, to establish the first Modern Slavery Act, following the very good process that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, mentioned. As I recall, having been the shadow at the time, that process had Frank Field, among others, chairing cross-party pre-legislative scrutiny efforts, which led to the legislation—the Act whose implementation my right honourable friend the current Home Secretary and I, as Members of Parliament, shadowed at the time.

It is one thing to pass an Act—we have all done that many times in this House and other Houses—but it is quite another to retain what I sense is a lifelong interest and passion for the issue. I say to the noble Baroness, 10 years on, that it is a tribute to her commitment at the time that she continues to do that. I also pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in his absence, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. All four have now formed a sort of coalition—I think we will call them the quartet after the earlier intervention by colleagues—that is taking a real interest in the development of this issue. I was pleased to address, on behalf of the Government, a reception in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago at which the noble Baroness, Lady May, appeared virtually to look at the next stages of tackling this issue.

Having said all that, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the amendments she has tabled today are covered by existing legislation. I am willing to be tested on that, but I hope I can give her that reassurance. She raised these issues at Second Reading and I hoped I had given her such reassurances then.

Amendment 47 seeks to provide a reasonable excuse for articles for use in immigration crime for those who are acting under duress of slavery, a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. I put it to the noble Baroness and the other noble Lords that the protections she is seeking are covered by Section 45 of the very Modern Slavery Act 2015 that was legislated for at that time. Going back to the point mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, Section 45 provides a statutory defence against prosecution where an individual was compelled to commit an offence as a result of their exploitation. That is very clear in the Modern Slavery Act, which—this is my view and that of my legal advisers in the Home Office, and I hope it has been echoed again today—can be interpreted to mean that, in the event of trafficking from modern slavery, all of the provisions of the Bill can be dealt with by that statutory defence. We can debate that, but I hope it will eventually satisfy the noble Baroness’s noble intention in bringing forward the amendment today.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

The trouble with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is that it is 10 years old, and some of it is not as well regarded as it might be. I recently attended an interesting discussion with the Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips, about updating the Modern Slavery Act so that people recognise that it is actually effective.

The Minister will know that the Government are putting into the Crime and Policing Bill a child exploitation clause. Technically, that is covered in the Modern Slavery Act, but they are putting that provision in there because the Act is not being properly regarded. This issue is something else that is not being properly regarded. Although technically it is in Section 45, to which I referred earlier, I am sure the Minister knows that Section 45 is not used in the courts as often as it ought to be, and that is a very practical reason for putting it into the Bill. If the Minister’s Government are prepared to put child exploitation into the Crime and Policing Bill, why can they not put another similar matter into this one?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an important point. I know that she, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady, met Jess Phillips last week. I hoped to join that meeting but parliamentary demands meant that I had to answer on an issue in this House, which meant I could not attend. I know that the committee of this House that produced the modern slavery report has raised a number of suggestions for updating and improving the Modern Slavery Act. My honourable friend Jess Phillips, who has direct responsibility for this issue in her position in the House of Commons as a Minister in the Home Office, is examining all the issues that were brought forward and wishes to make some improvements. The points in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House at some point, extend aspects of the modern slavery legislation regarding child exploitation.

Again, I give the noble and learned Baroness the reassurance that the assessment of our legal teams, and my assessment with Jess, as the Minister, and with other Ministers dealing with the Bill from all aspects of Parliament, concludes that the protections sought are covered by Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We can test that and we can reflect on it outside the Chamber, and the noble and learned Baroness and others can put points to us in response to what I have said, but that is the judgment that we have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he will remember that I asked him some questions about the national referral mechanism. I do not expect an answer now, but will he agree to write to me about that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I was just coming to the noble Lord’s question in my denouement. As I was saying to the noble Baroness, I hope she can reflect on the assurances I have given and withdraw her amendment. If she is not happy, she can return to these issues, but I hope she will reflect upon them. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that I do not have the figures he requested to hand. I can undoubtedly find a person who does have them and get them to him in short order. I will do it before we finish Committee.

With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady May, will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, in his absence, to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, not just for supporting these amendments but for the many years of commitment they have given to tackling modern slavery and supporting the victims and survivors of modern slavery.

I am also particularly grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for bringing her legal mind to bear to the interpretation and use of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Minister was very kind in saying that that Act stood the test of time rather better than some think. It has in large measure stood the test of time, but there are aspects of it, certainly around prosecutions, that are perhaps not being used as well as they might be. Supply chains are also an area we need action on.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remember moving amendments on supply chains during the passage of the original Bill; I think we had a friendly discussion on those at the time.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

I am very conscious that the supply chain issue has been around for some time. I put it to the Minister that, at the time, what was put into the Act was going to receive sufficient support across government to enable us to have something on supply chains in the Act. If he reads the report of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, he will see that we are urging mandating action on supply chains, which he may be pleased to support.

I would like to address a number the of points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about somebody being trafficked across the border having some sort of sign that enables them to start a conversation. One of the challenges is that, very often, people do not realise they are being trafficked into exploitation. They believe they are being brought across to a good job, and then they find they are in exploitation when they get here. They are unlikely to do that or want to do that.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower mentioned the speed of the NRM. That is indeed an issue. I know the Government have put some extra resources into it, but it is a deep concern that a process that was originally intended when introduced to last 45 days can now take 300 to 500 days, which is the period normally quoted, although I think somebody referred earlier to someone being in the NRM for four years. We need to get that down because people deserve to have decisions rather quicker than that. I recognise that that is an issue.

The Minister spoke about what was being held. He referred to documents but, again, we must realise that this is not just about small boats. There are a number of ways people will be trafficked illegally into this country and into exploitation and slavery. My attempt is to cover all these aspects.

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his kind remarks. There are issues around this question, and we are balancing the need and desire to do something for the victims of slavery against avoiding encouraging others. Of course, through the NRM there is a process for assessing if someone genuinely has been enslaved and trafficked into exploitation. That should, if the process works well, weed out criminal gang members who claim such modern slavery. That addresses the loophole point that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower raised.

It is very tempting to say, as has been said to me by some colleagues, that all of this just creates loopholes. But I say to noble Lords that if we are genuinely concerned that slavery exists in our world today, in 2025, and that people are being brought into our country into slavery—that they are being trafficked by criminal gangs which make money out of their expectations, hopes and misery when they face exploitation and slavery—and if we feel that that is wrong, we should do something about it. We draw our legislation up carefully so that we do our best not to create loopholes. But we cannot simply say that we abandon those in slavery, or those who are being exploited, because we are worried about a loophole.

Having said that, I heard what the Minister said about other pieces of legislation. I will go away and reflect on those, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am tempted to just say “I agree”, but it is important that we put some points on the record.

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. Amendment 59 seeks to include an explicit carve-out in the clause to list humanitarian support as a reasonable excuse. The list of reasonable excuses is already quite wide and includes specific exemptions for those undertaking or preparing to undertake the rescue of individuals from danger or serious harm, as well as for those acting on behalf of organisations that provide assistance to asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. I put to the noble Baroness that the list of reasonable excuses in this clause is non-exhaustive, and the provisions ensure that legitimate humanitarian activity is not captured by the offence. I hope that with that assurance, she will withdraw Amendment 59 accordingly.

Amendment 60, again to Clause 16, also provides a list of very reasonable excuses where a person acts for a purpose that is reasonable in the circumstances. That list is non-exhaustive and the wording is intentionally broad to allow courts to assess on the facts of each case whether an individual’s conduct falls within the scope of legitimate activity, including carrying out legal work. In practice, as previously mentioned, law enforcement agencies exercise investigatory discretion when assessing the circumstances of any case, and the prosecution will apply the public interest test when considering charges. That means that individuals acting within the scope of their legal role will not be targeted for prosecution. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance on the points that she has raised in the amendment.

The clause as drafted provides robust protection for those acting lawfully while allowing law enforcement to focus its efforts—as I have said in every discussion we have had to date—on the groups facilitating illegal and dangerous crossings. I hope that is a reassurance to the noble Baroness and she will not press the amendment, but essentially these are areas where we think there is clarity. Therefore, I hope she will reflect on those points and withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, of course I recognise that the lists are not exhaustive. It seemed to me to be fairly helpful to use the term “humanitarian”—but there we are.

I am puzzled by the opposition to the reference to lawyers acting in the field. I wonder whether anybody in this Chamber who provides professional services would like to be dependent on discretion, on the public interest test, particularly when the specific provision in subsection (8)(c)(ii) is that the organisation

“does not charge for its services”.

The legal aid lawyers and others acting for asylum seekers and refugees do not get paid very much, and sometimes they are employed by charities that do not get paid directly for their services, although they raise funds to enable them to carry out those services.

This is not special pleading on the part of the legal profession. It is pleading on behalf of the recipients of legal services, in fact, because of the widespread concern that the relevant legal services are not easily accessed. There are far too many legal aid deserts and far too few people who are in a position to provide advice and representation in this field. I had better not say—I suppose I am about to—that it strikes me a little that “not invented here” is the response to this. That will not win me any friends, but I do not see a damage or a harm that would be caused by including an amendment on the lines of the second in this group.

I am clearly not going to pursue the matter tonight, but it is a concern if this is not accepted and if individuals are told they should just be dependent on discretion and the CPS’s good sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have probably exhausted the use of recklessness—we have had it, virtually, in every other group—but, in essence, I also have a very specific issue to raise in respect of the amendment in my name, which, again, is about ensuring that the right people are criminalised. It is about those who are coerced into steering the dinghies which have been made available.

Paragraph 57 of the JCHR report refers to research by the associate director of border criminology at Oxford University, who said that

“the most common reasons for driving the dinghy were being under duress from smugglers in Northern France; needing a discount on the crossing; or having previous experience driving boats, either from previous employment or irregular journeys”.

There are differences between those groups, and it is the group of people who are under duress that are of interest in this amendment.

First, I want to be clear that the actions of criminals who run the boats in northern France are appalling. They have total disregard for human life. They are not a benevolent facilitator of asylum seekers but criminals who see this trade as a source of great profit. I was able to see a number of those dinghies in the last two weeks, and I heard from the French authorities about some of the actions and tactics that the smugglers adopted towards migrants to evade law enforcement and maximise profit by cramming as many people as they can on to those flimsy boats.

I want to explain something to people who often ask me, “Why don’t you just cut and slash the boat?” There was an example of that last week when the French authorities went into the water but slashed only one cylinder. The reason for that is that those boats have no solid base inside between the floating parts. If you slash them, the boat folds in half and drowns all the people already in the middle of the boat. Therefore, the French authorities are most concerned about taking that sort of action and are much more concerned about going for the motors, which is what I hope they will be doing in the coming weeks. It is right that those forcing people on to these boats should face the full force of the law. Having seen the flimsiness of them, I am absolutely convinced that it is all about making huge amounts of money.

The problem is that this offence is drawn more widely than the Government have set out as their intention. If we are looking solely at people who are coerced or compelled to steer the boat under duress from the smugglers, that is not very much different from the coercion of victims of trafficking, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in this and previous amendments. As the clause is currently drafted, it is not focused sufficiently on those who the Government wish to target and would also catch those asylum seekers who are victims of coercion. I am told that you can identify the people who have been steering these boats: the heat from the very cheap engines means that people get burns on their hands as a result of doing it. I know that the British and the French authorities can easily identify who has been steering a boat; the difficulty is whether that person has been coerced into it. That is why this amendment is in place—simply to give an opportunity to understand what the Government would do in those circumstances.

I appreciate that, in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister stated that:

“In practice, the focus will be intelligence-led and targeted at those who law enforcement believe to be working in connection with organised criminal networks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 128.]


It was also stated that

“the CPS will exercise … discretion, and the courts will be able to consider all the circumstances when deciding the appropriate sentence”.

While prosecutorial discretion is an important safeguard, maybe it is not a substitute for clarity within the Bill itself. On that very specific matter, I ask the Minister to give his consideration.

I must also say, in respect of the earlier amendments that we have just heard, that it seems to me that the Conservative Party wants to treat everyone in the boat as a criminal. If that is the case, does the Minister agrees or disagree with that? If he agrees, what is the consequence of treating asylum seekers as criminals when they arrive in our country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I think there is a common aim in the Committee to ensure that we take action to prevent illegal migration, dangerous crossings and fatalities at sea. While we may have different views on some of the issues, this is a common aim that we all share. The endangerment offence, which we will talk about now, is a tangible measure to address dangerous acts during crossings and introduces consequences for such behaviour that risks or causes serious injury or death.

A number of amendments have been brought forward by noble Lords. I start, if I may, with Amendments 63 and 64, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Amendment 64 seeks to apply the offence to any individual who enters the UK illegally using a vessel that they could not reasonably have thought was safe for the purposes of reaching the UK, and Amendment 63 seeks to remove reference to specific countries.

I understand the intention of Amendment 63. The named countries in Clause 18 are appropriate to capture the focus on channel crossings, which is the Government’s main focus with this legislation, and provide clarity on which body of water is the focus. The reason we have looked at the particular three countries named in the Bill is that that is where the majority of the focus is today. I understand the points that the noble Lord has mentioned, but this has been done to focus the approach on channel crossings.

Amendment 64 would fundamentally alter the focus of Clause 18. Instead of targeting specific acts, this amendment would criminalise any person for boarding an unsafe vessel. The reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means the amendment would capture all those making a journey. Is it in the public and taxpayer interest to put every small boat arrival through the criminal justice system? I sense agreement from the noble Lord, Lord German, on that point.

The Government do not condone crossings, far from it. Noble Lords have heard during this debate that we are focused on taking action. However, the decision to board these flimsy boats is often made in chaotic circumstances, with the condition of the boat and the passage outside the individual’s control. We saw some of this in pictures at the weekend when the French took action. Setting out what is reasonable in that scenario is almost impossible, and what may be judged safe in one moment may quickly change. The weekend’s events showed that very clearly. Furthermore, adding the requirement of an unsafe vessel does not add to existing offences of illegal entry and arrival. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that explanation.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require that the relevant act was done “intentionally or recklessly”. Amendment 66, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the act to be committed intentionally and/or for financial gain. I recognise the intention behind requiring that the person committed the act intentionally or recklessly. That mirrors the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I will respond to before Report. I thank the committee for its work and will consider its conclusions carefully. However, the amendment as currently proposed would undermine the effectiveness of the offence. Focusing on whether someone commits an act intentionally or recklessly pulls the focus of the offence away from the serious harm or risk of such harm caused to vulnerable people in these situations and, crucially, would make it easier for criminals to evade the offence.

Adding a requirement for financial gain would undermine the intended effect. A person does not immediately need to financially gain for it to be appropriate for there to be consequences for dangerous acts that cause or risk serious injury or death of another. The amendment conflates measures in the Bill that tackle the facilitators behind small boat crossings and those, such as the endangerment offence, that are a response to the serious harms posed by individual actions. Those who cause risk or harm should face consequences.

The endangerment offence rightly targets the most dangerous forms of behaviour and offers increased sentencing. Existing safeguards are in place. Prosecution services will, as I have said throughout the Bill, consider the particular facts of a case and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord German, that the offence has been designed to be proportionate and effective, and addresses the most dangerous behaviour in order to reduce harm.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for Amendment 67. This may bring her a sense of déjà vu but I am going to say pretty much what I said in the last group of amendments. It is our assessment that Section 45 of the legislation that she facilitated in 2015 is a defence against prosecution where an individual commits the offence as a direct result of, or is compelled to commit an offence as a result of, their exploitation. The example the noble Baroness helpfully gave of a person entering a boat to save a child would be covered by Section 45 of that Act. It includes the catch-all defence of modern slavery for actions deemed to be criminal under this legislation. The national referral mechanism, which I know the noble Baroness is familiar with, is part of that defence, and I hope that those safeguards are in place.

On top of that, we have the standard prosecutorial defence mechanism whereby the prosecution—the CPS in this case—would have to make a judgment. The example that the noble Baroness has given would, I think, give pause for thought for that discretion by the CPS. With the general criminal defence of duress, I hope those two issues together will reassure the noble Baroness on that point.

The new endangerment offence addresses the current gap in legislation. We have specifically and carefully designed it to address dangerous acts that create further risk in what are already dangerous crossings. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments. It is about focus on the channel. It is about making sure that we give proper protections where required and that we have clarity in the law. I hope that they will not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

70: Clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) a constable of the Police Service of Scotland,(d) a constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or(e) an NCA officer,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition of “authorised officer” for the purposes of the powers in clauses 20 to 23 to cover constables of the police services of Scotland and Northern Ireland and National Crime Agency officers.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I begin by reaffirming the policy position of the Government for the use of search and seizure powers, which is an approach grounded in the principles of proportionality, accountability and the rule of law. The amendments in my name before the Committee today have an underpinning policy objective, and that is to ensure that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the necessary powers to search for, seize, retain and use information from electronic devices belonging to irregular entrants or arrivals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an electronic device is likely to contain information relevant to the offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. These powers are vital to disrupt organised crime groups. We must ensure that authorised officers are fully equipped to use the powers effectively and we must have safeguards in place against misuse.

Government Amendment 70 expands the definition of “authorised officer” to include

“a constable of the Police Service of Scotland … Northern Ireland, or … an NCA officer”.

This now ensures that constables from devolved police services and the National Crime Agency, who were already authorised, may exercise the full powers available to them under the legislation.

The National Crime Agency-focused amendments that follow on from government Amendment 70—Amendments 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 92 and 94—collectively ensure that NCA officers have all the relevant safeguards and protections and legal clarity in using these powers. Government Amendments 75, 79 and 92 require that the NCA officers exercising powers under Clauses 20, 21 and 23 must be authorised by an officer of at least inspector equivalent grade with the requirement to inform a superintendent or equivalent officer, in line with safeguards applied to police constables.

Government Amendments 77 and 81 provide protections under paragraphs 21 and 22 of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, ensuring that those who obstruct or assault an NCA officer during the exercise of their powers under Clauses 20 and 21 may face criminal prosecution. Government Amendment 80 enables NCA officers to use reasonable force where necessary in the execution of their powers under Clause 21. Government Amendments 82 and 83 provide for the lawful transfer of seized items to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State. I apologise for the number of amendments but I hope that they are all relatively straightforward. Government Amendment 94 provides legal clarity by defining “NCA officer” within Clause 26.

These amendments are necessary and proportionate to enable officers to perform their duties effectively. The National Crime Agency, as noble Lords will know, is the central agency in combating serious and organised immigration crime, and previously the Bill sought to include NCA officers by enabling them to use their immigration powers. However, NCA officers are triple warranted, holding the powers of constable, immigration officer and customs officer. Through ongoing engagement with the NCA, it became clear that it would be more operationally effective for the Bill explicitly to enable them to exercise their police powers under this legislation.

Government Amendment 70 extends these powers to the devolved police services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that we have consistency across the United Kingdom as a whole. Members will know that criminal organisations do not respect administrative boundaries and will operate wherever they can. Due to the inclusion now of devolved police services, government Amendment 89 ensures that appropriate legal procedures are in place for the disposal of relevant articles held by constables of Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

There are several consequential amendments—Amendments 85, 86, 87, 88 and 93—which are minor and technical in nature, but will, I hope, help to ensure the legal coherence of the Bill. In essence, the amendments extend powers to the NCA, police in Scotland and police in Northern Ireland, with appropriate safeguards. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord German (LD)]

To be absolutely clear, are there further amendments in this area to Clause 33 concerning trailers, or is that covered in this group? I will give the Minister time to think about that.

The Minister sent us a letter on 17 June relating to these amendments. On Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers, the letter said that an amendment had been tabled to Clause 33(9)—this is why I ask the question—which specifies the persons and bodies to be consulted before making regulations under Clause 33(8), which is about trailer data. It says that: “at present, this amendment is framed in such a way that the Northern Ireland and Scottish Ministers need be consulted only where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so”. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider it appropriate so to do? If he wants to answer some time later, that would be fine.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always hope to be helpful to the noble Lord. I suggest that we consider those matters in some detail when we reach Clause 33. These amendments relate to the additional powers for the National Crime Agency and bringing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Scotland into the remit of the legislation. They have all been done in consultation with the three responsible bodies—the Home Secretary and the two devolved Administrations. I am very happy to examine Clause 33, but I think it would be in order to do so just after Clause 32 and before Clause 34.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we appreciate that, as the Government go through the Bill, they will make minor adjustments to the language or corrective amendments to tighten it up, but the amendments in this group incorporate substantial changes that could well have been included in the Bill before. The fact that we are now turning to 17 government amendments, with at least eight substantive ones, speaks to the fact that the Bill could have been more carefully drafted. I will not take too much time dwelling on this issue, but it is important to raise that we on this side have been clear throughout Committee that we need to develop legislation that is robust and unambiguous and that can tackle this serious problem. That the Government are only just realising at this late stage that they have missed out key provisions perhaps does not inspire confidence.

Broadly speaking, we support the amendments in this group, in so far as they allow the more effective enforcement of some of the provisions in this Bill, in particular specifying that the NCA will have the capability to seize relevant articles and exercise reasonable force. However, we need to make sure that these powers are exercised with due care and proper procedure and process. I hope the Minister will set out how this will be ensured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I have just double-checked all the amendments that have been laid, and there is none as was laid out in the letter. I will not ask the Minister to reply to this, but it is a lacuna. The letter says that an amendment has been tabled to Clause 33(9). According to the Marshalled List, it is not there. I do not expect a substantive reply, but I guess that an amendment will be laid, and the letter was slightly inaccurate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I have been clear with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, about what these amendments are for. As ever, as Ministers we all know that things are organic and in development. If requests come in, loopholes are found or things need to be tightened up, amendments are part of the parliamentary process, as is reflection on amendments that colleagues table on Report in both Houses from the Opposition and other Benches. It is an organic process. I hope I was clear, and I do not think he objects to the principle behind why they have been tabled. I am grateful for his support.

In reply to the noble Lord, I will just say that I do not write inaccurate letters. I try to be open and fair, which is why the letter was issued. We are not yet at Clause 33; I will give him chapter and verse on all the issues that he has raised when we get there, which is the appropriate part in our proceedings to discuss those matters.

Amendment 70 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

75: Clause 20, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) An NCA officer may exercise a power to search under this section only if the search is authorised by an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector.(8B) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (8A), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power to search under clause 20 exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

79: Clause 21, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) An NCA officer may seize a relevant article under subsection (1) only if the seizure of the article is authorised by an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector.(3B) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (3A), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer at or above a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power to seize an article under clause 21(1) exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

85: Clause 21, page 15, line 28, leave out “or (10)” and insert “, (10), (11) or (13)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 21, page 15, line 40.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

92: Clause 23, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) An NCA officer may access, examine, copy, retain or use information under subsection (1) only if the accessing, examination, copying, retention or use of the information is authorised by an NCA officer of a grade that is equivalent to the rank of inspector or above.(5) If an NCA officer gives an authorisation under subsection (4), the NCA officer must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an NCA officer of a grade that is equivalent to the rank of superintendent or above to be informed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the authorisation by a senior National Crime Agency officer of a power under clause 23(1) to access etc information on a relevant article exercised by a National Crime Agency officer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

93: Clause 24, page 18, line 14, leave out “(10)” and insert “(13)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 21, page 15, line 40.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

94: Clause 26, page 19, line 23, at end insert—
““NCA officer” means National Crime Agency officer;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “NCA officer” into clause 26 for the purposes of clauses 19 to 23.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I need to declare my regular interest in the RAMP organisation, which provides support for me and for other Members of this House across all parties. I want to start by reflecting on Amendment 190, which is about protecting trafficked people and those coerced, in many cases, into coming into this country. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, just referred to the session a few weeks ago here in the Palace of Westminster where we heard testimonies from people and how they managed to get out of the modern slavery circumstance in which they found themselves. It is important that those migrant workers are able to report their abuse without fear of the other part of the system coming in and saying, “Well, you’re here illegally and we won’t deal with your case of being coerced to come here in the first place first”.

It is a matter of which part of the system you put first. The amendment tries to make sure that we can protect those being coerced and not subject them immediately to questions about their immigration status rather than about the coercion they have received. It would be good if these things could be worked together, but the harsh reality is that they are not. Migrant workers have heightened vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and are less likely to report it. In many of the cases that we heard of here in this Palace, people were literally running away with nothing, but they could not run away until they had someone they could run to. They feared that the authorities would prioritise their insecure immigration status over the harm that they had received. That is the balance this amendment is trying to correct.

This concern is well founded. Evidence indicates that individuals’ personal data is frequently shared between labour market enforcement agencies, the police and immigration enforcement. This occurs despite the absence of any legal obligation for labour market enforcement agencies or local authorities to verify workers’ immigration status or report those with insecure status to the Home Office. Unscrupulous employers are able to capitalise on this fear with impunity, and it pushes down wages and conditions right across the board. That is the purpose of this amendment, and I commend it to the Minister. In explanation at the end, perhaps he could say how we can deal with the issues of people trying to escape from coerced, abusive and exploitative labour and how that can be dealt with effectively when the other part of the system is working against it.

I want to refer to the amendment on which I pressed the Minister on Tuesday. I am grateful for him pointing out where it is, because the only point that I wanted to make on it was that the requirement now is for the Minister to consult the devolved Governments rather than simply to take note of them, which I thought perhaps was the indication we were getting from his earlier letter. I am pleased that the amendment requires that he should do so.

On GDPR, I understand why the Conservatives have come to this position, because they simply say that everybody coming to this country by irregular means is illegal. Of course, they do not want their cases to be heard; they just want to get rid of them again. Thankfully, in further amendments we are going to deal with today, we are going to remove that universality of approach, assuming that this House passes the Bill in the way that the Government have laid it before us. It is important that GDPR applies to everyone in the UK, including those in the criminal justice system undergoing investigations. Universality in that sense has been a principle of our law, and we should stick to it and not create illegality when it does not necessarily exist.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for commencing this afternoon’s consideration and for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before addressing the points made by noble Lords on their own amendments, I just want to point out government Amendment 96 to Clause 33 in this group, which I will come back to in a moment.

I will begin by addressing the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which have been reflected elsewhere. He may know that during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act, we as the Official Opposition and I as the then shadow Immigration Minister moved amendments. I do not need to see—with due respect now—a 10-year-old photograph of us to reflect on that, but if he wishes to pass it to me, I may have to. In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through. We want to look at the visa rules to ensure that they are operating fairly and properly. It is not related directly to the amendments before us today, but I just wanted to place that on the record again for the noble Lord.

Government Amendment 96 in my name does indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, amend the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with the trailer registration data that may be used by the police and onwards shared by the police and the Home Office in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill. Clause 33(8) creates a power to make police regulations to specify the purposes related to policing and, as currently drafted, the clause creates a duty to

“consult such of the following persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

and lists Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and police representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I probe the Minister on the point he made in response to my noble friend’s amendment on data sharing and the GDPR? The Minister said—and I understand why he said it—that he felt my noble friend’s amendment was unnecessary. Is he able, either today, in writing or on a future day, to reassure the House that there are not cases where we are dealing with foreign criminals or those who have entered the country illegally where either his department or relevant officials are stopped from dealing with them because of that? Is he basically saying that it is not a problem—that there are no cases of dealing with criminality or these gangs where there is an information-sharing problem? If he is happy to reassure us that there really is not a problem and the existing GDPR framework works effectively, then clearly that is very reassuring. Is he able to say that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look in detail at the Hansard report of the contributions that have been made today and reflect on them, but my assessment is that I can give the noble Lord that assurance. If there is any difference in the detail that he has mentioned, I will double-check with officials to make sure that we are clear on that.

The noble Lord should know, and I think he does know, that one of the Government’s objectives is to turbocharge the removal of foreign national criminals with no right to stay in the United Kingdom after their sentence, and indeed during it, and to ensure that those with offences that are a bar to their entry to the United Kingdom are monitored and acted on accordingly. That is an important principle. Without rehearsing the arguments around that with him now, I can say that the past year has shown that we have had an increase in the number of foreign nationals who have been removed, and it is our objective to try to do that.

To give the noble Lord reassurance, I will ensure that my officials and I examine the Hansard report, and, if the reassurances I have given are not sufficient for him, he has the opportunity to revisit this issue on Report, as does the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In the light of that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and that she and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, do not press their other amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, it might help the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to know that, in the paragraph in the Data Protection Act that sets out an exemption to data sharing, the wide phrase,

“for the purposes of immigration enforcement”,

is one that these Benches have opposed. Given our relative positions, that might be a pretty good reassurance for him.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for extending the debate a little. The pre-2012 visa regime was more realistic—if I can put it like that—as to the position of domestic workers. Restricting the period that they could remain in this country after an incident to six months is frankly insufficient to help them recover. You would not employ somebody for six months as, for example, a nanny, if you can find somebody who is able to do the job for longer. I am of course disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s response to Amendment 190.

With regard to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, while I was listening to him, I was struck that we should recognise the agency of people who are affected or abused. The Employment Rights Bill has a clause that raises a very interesting situation: the state can take enforcement action on behalf, and without the consent, of an affected individual. That raises some very interesting and frankly rather troubling issues. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 95.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

96: Clause 33, page 28, line 37, leave out from “consult” to end of line 1 on page 29 and insert “—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and(c) such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the views of a body of constables in the United Kingdom as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with which trailer registration data may be disclosed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. At present, we are not minded to support Amendments 97 and 98. I entirely understand the rationale behind them and many noble Lords have spoken powerfully in support of them. The concern we have is simply an operational one, which was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The operational implications of these amendments may be very broad and far reaching. It seems to me that they would create a practical obligation for the UK Government to deploy biometric collection facilities or personnel across multiple jurisdictions, regardless of cost or feasibility.

Clause 34 applies specifically to authorised persons, who are, in the definition of the clause,

“a person authorised by the Secretary of State”.

That could come at an unknown and potentially significant cost. Are we to set up biometric processing hubs in every conflict-adjacent state? The noble Lord, Lord German, stated that that could easily be done, but I remain to be convinced. My noble friend Lord Harper was very pertinent about this. If the Government are to support this, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the logistical burden on government would be?

Amendment 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is a probing amendment designed to understand which organisations will have access to biometric information for the purposes of exercising a function relating to law enforcement. It brings with it the noble Lord’s customary focus and expertise in this area. It is very welcome, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out which agencies will have access to this information to fulfil the demands set out in Clause 35.

I once again reiterate that we need to make sure that, in the technical solutions we are discussing on this fundamental issue, we are firm and robust in taking steps to mitigate and ultimately end the crisis of illegal migration, not exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has just made. There is a common interest between His Majesty’s Opposition and us on that issue.

The important point about Clause 34 is that biometrics are required as part of an immigration or nationality application to conduct checks on the person’s identity and suitability before they come to the UK. That is a perfectly legitimate government objective and the purpose of the clause is to establish it in relation to the powers in the Bill, which aim to strengthen the Government’s ability to respond flexibly in crisis situations in particular, as noble Lords across the Committee have mentioned. The Bill provides the power to take biometrics—fingerprints or facial images of the applicant—without the need for an application to be submitted. That has had a generally positive welcome from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the signatories of the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. It is important to recognise that.

The proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to determine whether the person poses a security threat—this goes to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which I will come back to in a moment—before facilitating their exit from another country. The Bill will ensure that the power to collect biometrics outside of a visa application process will take place only in tightly defined circumstances where individuals are seeking to leave a particular country due to a crisis or any other situation where this Government facilitate their exit.

Before I move on to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the matter that he raised. Where biometrics are collected in connection with immigration or nationality applications, the police will be able to conduct their own checks against the biometrics captured under the clauses in this Bill. For example, the police currently have access to this data when the biometrics are enrolled into the immigration and asylum biometric system. They can then be washed against a series of police fingerprint databases, which include unified collection captured at police stations and other sets of images, including from scenes of crime and special collections, used to identify high-risk individuals. The noble Lord made this very point. This could be particularly important with individuals who have been involved in terrorism activity and appear on counterterrorism databases. The police make checks against the Home Office fingerprint database to help identify a person they have arrested and assess whether they might also be a foreign national offender. I hope the fact that those checks are undertaken will enable him to withdraw his amendment, based on that assurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, raised important issues and tabled amendments which aim to defer or excuse the request for biometrics from overseas applicants. As I have said, biometrics are normally required to be taken as part of an application to conduct checks on the person’s identity. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, said, that is important for security.

In all cases, it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the decision-maker about their identity. A decision-maker may decide it is appropriate for an application to be made at a visa application centre, or to enrol the biometrics to be deferred or waived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He will recall the example I gave of a two year-old boy in Sudan wanting to be reunited with his grandmother. It took 11 months to do that, and it required the transportation of information half-way across Africa in order to achieve it.

Will the Minister look at the countries generating the largest number of migrants who end up in boats in the channel, on irregular journeys, as some would put it—we all know that Sudan is one of the foremost of those countries—and see if we can do more to prevent people leaving in the first place by dealing with issues like family reunion in a more expeditious manner? I am not asking him necessarily to come forward with amendments to that effect, but even if he were to facilitate further discussions between his department and particularly the FCDO to see how that might be generated, that would be helpful to the Committee.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I will let my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti speak and then respond.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sorry to come in on the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, again. My noble friend the Minister discussed the need for flexibility. Surely the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would extend governmental flexibility to facilitate biometrics being taken in more places for family reunion cases. The noble Lord opposite was concerned that this would put an onerous obligation on the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State is the person who will authorise people, and he will not make these authorisations if he thinks they are impracticable or overly burdensome. Can my noble friend the Minister reflect on that in future and see this as providing additional flexibility and not an additional burden?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In response to both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I will repeat what I said in my preamble today: the Home Office is continuing to assess whether broader policy changes are needed to balance that humanitarian concern. The noble Lord made a very strong point about a child aged two and the length of time for a reunion—that will fall within our assessment of the broader humanitarian concern. We need to balance that with security requirements; however, in the case he put to us, a two-year old child would self-evidently not pose that type of threat.

This is important. I say to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments that the purpose of the clause is to provide the assurances that we have. I accept that noble Lords are testing that; however, while we will examine the points that have been made, I believe that there are alternative ways to achieve that objective. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not to press her amendments. I also hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

We are all on the same side here, and I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate that he stated that he will reflect on what we have said from all sides of the House.

It is true that there are alternative ways and that the UNHCR and the IOM can help. However, if you are in Afghanistan, there is no way that those organisations can help you until you have reached Pakistan. Getting across the Khyber these days is not easy, particularly if you are a child—and children make up more than 50% of the family reunion cases. While I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s answer, I do not believe that it is a complete answer. I therefore press him to go on thinking about the points that have been made today.

I will cheat very slightly by saying that there is also a very direct way in which one could make on-site, in-country visa centres available—to reopen embassies. I am talking about Syria. I do not know why we do not have an embassy in Damascus now for all sorts of political reasons. Given its significance to the whole of the Arab world, we should have an embassy in Damascus. If we had an embassy, we would of course have a visa centre there. I hope that a wish to avoid paying for a visa centre in Syria is not causing the Foreign Office not to reopen the embassy in Damascus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings great experience of the Foreign Office. He will know about this better than I do; I am a Home Office person rather than a Foreign Office person. I am trying to assure the House that, while the points that have been made are a fair challenge to the Government, we believe that the clause meets those obligations, providing flexibility and engagement with the International Organization for Migration, the UNHCR and others.

I mentioned Operation Pitting in Afghanistan in 2021. Some 15,000 people were evacuated and biometrics were collected post arrival in the United Kingdom. In the Sudan evacuation, just under 2,500 individuals were evacuated, with biometric checks taken in third-party countries such as Saudi Arabia. In Gaza, 250 British nationals were supported to exit and biometric checks were taken. The mechanism is there. I have had strong representations from across the Committee on this issue, but I am trying to explain the position of Clause 34. I hope that, with my comments, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

I have not forgotten the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who may want to intervene—he does want to, so I shall allow him to before I finally, I hope, wind up.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister. First, I am broadly reassured. There is just one area where I hope he might reassure himself and therefore me. I mentioned the Afghanistan IED material. It is probably difficult to talk about publicly, but if he could reassure himself that this biometric data had been checked against that database, I would be very reassured and that might help him too.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given a broad description. The police have access to terrorist databases with information and biometrics generally. I think it best not to talk, at the moment, about specific databases. I believe the IED database that he mentioned is covered by the proposals, but I will check with my colleagues who have a responsibility for that, rather than inadvertently give the Committee information that proves subsequently not to be as accurate as I would wish.

With that, I would very much welcome the noble Baroness responding and withdrawing the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I think that is the third time the Minister has asked me to do so, and I will—but not quite yet. I say to those waiting for the next business that I will not be going down the side roads of the summit, what might happen on the northern shores of France or in Syria—much as I would like to, given my own heritage—or my noble friend Lord German’s escapades with portable biometric equipment.

A number of noble Lords, including me, have referred to the reliance on smugglers, which is ironic in the circumstances. I say again to the Committee—to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron—that we are not opposing Clause 34. In fact, we are positively supporting it. We are not challenging the use of biometrics; we are looking at procedures and the candidates for the application of Clause 34.

The Minister referred to the possibilities of what can be done in exceptional circumstances. That is a term that I always find quite difficult; it seems to me that a family disunited in extreme circumstances should be regarded as exceptional. I understand that, from his point of view, that may be different. Frankly, to travel from Sudan to Saudi Arabia twice would be very exceptional in itself.

Given the support across the Committee for the concept of what is incorporated in these amendments, as the Minister said, I wonder whether this is something we might find a moment to discuss after Committee and before Report. There should be a way of taking forward how the procedures can be used, without disrupting the Government’s concerns. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I knew it would be only a matter of time before the debate turned to the European Union. However, I offer some support on this amendment, which seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement on co-operation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol. I do so not out of any dogmatic enthusiasm for greater institutional integration with the European Union, but because it touches on something far more important—that the Government should have a duty to come before Parliament and the British people and show us the work they have been doing to smash the gangs.

We have all these questions already—how many gangs have been dismantled, how many people smugglers have been arrested and what impact that has had on the scale of the crossings—so, once this Bill comes into force, the pressure on the Government to answer them will be even greater. To that end, we think the requirement to report these numbers should be set out in law. This amendment speaks to earlier provisions tabled in our name in which we called for greater transparency about enforcement outcomes. If the Government are serious about stopping the boats, breaking the business model and restoring control, they should welcome the opportunity to show Parliament the evidence.

However, I strike a note of caution. While co-operation with Europol is undoubtedly important, it must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. This Bill cannot be a backdoor to deeper alignment for its own sake. What matters is whether the relationship delivers results and helps our agencies do their job more effectively. If it does, let us support it; if it does not or if resources would be better deployed elsewhere, we must retain the flexibility to make those choices. I support the principle behind the amendment: let us have the data, see the progress and ensure that decisions about operational co-operation are rooted in the fight against serious crime and not some broader desire to turn back the clock on Brexit. That is the balanced and pragmatic path forward.

The same principle of operational demand underpins our opposition to Amendment 101. We have spoken a lot about giving our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, but we cannot tie their hands. With respect to the noble Baroness, I believe that our authorities can be trusted to determine whether a joint task force with Europol is necessary and I do not think that compelling them to do this in law is particularly sensible.

Our concerns are much the same with Amendment 206. While I am sure that it is well intentioned, I will speak against it. However worthy its stated aim, it rests on a flawed premise: that this Chamber, and individual Members, should be in the business of directing operational law enforcement resources from the Floor of Parliament. Of course we expect the Government to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are adequately resourced. That is a basic responsibility. What I find more difficult to accept is the idea that we should begin legislating where those resources must go, as if we are better placed than the professionals to determine strategic priorities, operational partnerships or the most effective deployment of personnel and technology. Respectfully, what qualifies the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to decide by statute how the National Crime Agency or our police forces should engage with Europol? Are we to micromanage from your Lordships’ House the balance between domestic enforcement and international co-operation? I do not believe those on the front line will thank us for it.

We should not forget that enforcement against illegal migration and human trafficking is a complex, fast-evolving challenge. It requires flexibility, responsiveness and operational freedom, not rigid legal mandates handed down from Westminster. If law enforcement agencies judge that Europol operations offer the best return on effort and resources, then they will and should participate. But if priorities shift or if intelligence and tactical realities require a different focus, they must be free to act accordingly.

This is a debate not about whether we support the fight against people smuggling—we all do—but about whether we think Parliament should start signing away operational discretion and tying the hands of those we rely on to deliver results. That is not a responsible use of legislative power. We need to be guided by practical application, not political aspiration. Let the experts lead and let Government support them in doing so, not box them in. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

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

My Lords, I have a confession to make—and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I make it. As a Member of Parliament, I spent a lot of the period between 2016 and 2019 arguing for a close relationship with Europol when we were agreeing the Brexit referendum and agreements. I put a lot of pressure on the then Prime Minister and Home Secretary to ensure that they valued Europol and our close co-operation with it. I was disappointed in the outcome of the settlements achieved on that relationship. I therefore start from the basis that I believe that the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, are important. The approach of the current Government since 2024 has been to ensure that we encourage and engage in co-operation with Europol and other agencies to achieve the objectives that we have set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Those figures are extremely impressive—thank goodness for that—but can the Minister explain why over 21,000 people are arriving in the UK on boats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that this is a complex challenge and that the Government are trying to undertake a range of measures to address it. He will also know—we will return to this in more detail later—that, with the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme, we have been able both to process more applications on asylum and to remove people from hotels and shut more hotels. We have also been able to provide greater investment in the sort of co-operation that the Border Security Commander will undertake shortly, and I believe that continued pressure will be placed on that issue. The noble Lord knows that it is a difficult challenge—I am not denying that—but we have a duty to disrupt, and that disruption involves close co-operation with Europol.

I get the sense—I mean this in the nicest possible way—that these are probing amendments to get a view from the Government on the issues around Europol; all three press the Government on where we are with that. The noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, have challenged the drafting and objectives of the relevant clauses. I will address the first two amendments as probing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord German, which seek to determine what we are doing with Europol. I accept those challenges and will respond to them.

The Border Security Commander—the legal framework for such a role is in the early clauses of the Bill—will work with a range of international bodies, including Europol, to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, recognising that an international solution is required for the current international, cross-border set of challenges. The recent Organised Immigration Crime Summit brought together over 40 countries and law enforcement bodies, including Europol to unite behind a new approach to dismantle people-smuggling gangs and to deliver on the people’s priorities for a securer border. The amendments are pressing us to address that.

First, there is the argument for an annual report to Parliament. Under the Bill, the Border Security Commander has to provide an annual report to Parliament and his work is very closely linked to that of Europol. We have a very strong relationship with Europol currently and a significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The Home Office will continue to work with Europol to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, and the Border Security Commander has a key role in Europol being one of the agencies through which our objectives are being set.

To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord German, on joint working with Europol, we have 20 officers embedded as liaison officers in Europol headquarters, with teams across the European community. It would be challenging, and perhaps—dare I say—inappropriate to set statutory requirements that would seek to establish joint taskforce operations when these are currently operational decisions.

Those operational decisions have the full support of government to work closely with Europol to help with data, criminal investigations and to ensure that we work in partnership. That is vital, given that many of the criminal gangs are operating in the European Community—in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. That is why the Border Security Commander, as well as working closely with Europol, has established and worked with the Calais Group, its member states being France, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom, looking at close co-operation in those areas.

We are ensuring that we have adequate resources for law-enforcement agencies to enhance participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. There is regular interaction with Europol, and the commander is already providing strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats to UK border security, protecting the UK border and going after the people-smuggling gangs. We believe that the legislation strikes that operational balance but also ensures that law enforcement and the UK intelligence community are supportive of the commander’s approach. By establishing that clear direction and leadership, we are creating a strong, cohesive system to boost the activities of Europol as a whole.

There is a very strong operational relationship with Europol, led by the National Crime Agency. The director-general of the National Crime Agency regularly meets with his counterpart, Catherine De Bolle, to discuss relevant matters. The commander himself has engaged heavily with law enforcement since being appointed. We have doubled our presence at Europol, and we hosted Interpol’s general assembly in Glasgow in November 2024. We have also increased the number of embeds from the National Crime Agency in European organisations such as Europol.

On an operational and strategic level, it is in the interests of both Europol—the European Community—and the United Kingdom to have that close co-operation. That is why in the period post the Brexit referendum, I and others argued for that strong relationship: because it was important. As the noble Baroness said herself, a UK citizen, Rob Wainwright, was the leader of Europol when we were in the European Community.

I hope that there is not a sliver of difference between us. However, going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, the amendments demand an annual report and taskforce co-operation, with us determining a third-party taskforce to be co-operated with. They also demand areas of resource—which we are dealing with, without the attack on operational independence that that approach may involve.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for the explanation he has given so far, which I think indicates a surprising level of progress, given where we started from with the agreement that preceded this. The Minister has kindly told us that we have officers embedded in The Hague. Does Europol have similar officers embedded in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is probably best if I reflect on that, because although I know who is embedded in Europol, I do not know offhand, unless I can find some inspiration in the next few seconds—I fear that I may have to check. I say that simply because this Minister and this Government are responsible for National Crime Agency liaison; we are not responsible for the Europol aspect of liaison with us. Rather than give the noble Lord an unhelpful answer, if he will allow me I will reflect on that in due course and give him a specific answer in writing, post this very helpful set of amendments, which I still hope will not be pressed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that response. The tone and approach go very much in the direction and spirit of the amendments, even if their drafting is not entirely fit, in the Minister’s mind. He is right that they were designed to illustrate the very welcome change of approach of the current Government, who regard co-operation with Europol—and, indeed, with the EU generally—as important.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that we must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. I do not think you could find anything in the drafting of the amendments which is not operational. To be honest, I take slight exception to any suggestion that they are driven by ideological nostalgia. If there is any ideology, it is coming from those on the Opposition Benches, who are still displaying an allergy to the European Union.

I have the pleasure of serving on the European Affairs Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We are going to have some interesting discussions when we finalise our report on the reset. He referred to the leads from the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council giving evidence to us a few months ago. I looked it up while he was speaking, and they referred to the more cumbersome, clunky and process-heavy post-Brexit arrangements. They were engaged in mitigation, so they were making the best—I am now using words they did not use—of a not great job. I am afraid that what is coming from the Benches to my right is a prejudice against working with the European Union.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

There are all kinds of things we can aspire to. Unfortunately, the arrangements the noble Lord’s party negotiated have certain constraints in terms of the legal operation of the European Union, and he knows that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am sorry to disturb the noble Baroness’s flow, but I want to place on record, in answer to the question raised by Members, that there are no Europol embeds in the UK. There is a Europol liaison unit, which is staffed entirely by UK police officers. I hope that is helpful.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful information.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment directly seeks to reduce that risk, keep these important documents safe and ensure that efforts to undermine our borders are both addressed and combated.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for tabling these amendments, if only because we have been able to revisit matters from the past 17 years on the benefits or otherwise of ID cards. I had the pleasure, or misfortune—delete as appropriate—to be in the Home Office in 2009 when we had the ID card rollout. I think I have said to the House before that I had ID card No. 3 at the time and had lots of biometric information taken from me. In fact, I remember travelling to Austria on my ID card instead of a passport—such was the pleasure of having that ID card.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has revisited his vote in the Commons and that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has suggested similar. However, that debate is for another day. It is not one we can revisit today, as it does not really feature in any of the amendments before us. While it provides an interesting historical perspective on the rights and wrongs of having ID cards, it is the amendment before us from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, that addresses biometric information, and, if I may, I will focus on that.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I have enjoyed this exchange with the Minister on that vote. I have been trying to find out if there was any chance that I was not around during that vote; I was Minister of State in Northern Ireland at the time, and I was rather hoping that I was stuck over there. Unfortunately, because of a lack of data collection, there seems to be no way of finding out about my presence or otherwise at that time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. If he was in the building, he would have voted that particular way; otherwise, he would not have been a Northern Ireland Minister for very much longer. However, it is immaterial whether he was in the building or not; the Government he supported voted to abolish ID cards. Let me put that to one side, however; it is a debate for another day.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 102 is intended to require all foreign nationals to provide biometric information on arrival to the United Kingdom or face arrest if they fail to do so. I have no problem with biometric information and using it to secure our borders and protect the public. I have no problem with the fact that it is already a cornerstone of our immigration system, as it enables us to identify foreign nationals who are coming in and out of, or staying in, the United Kingdom. Individuals who seek to enter the UK are required to provide biometric information as part of their application for entry clearance or, indeed, an electronic travel authorisation. This allows us to do what I think the noble Lord wants us to do: to verify identity and assess suitability before arrival. We already compare applicants’ fingerprints against immigration and law enforcement databases, and that already enables us to identify those who may pose a threat in coming to United Kingdom. Requiring biometrics to be provided before a person travels to the UK also reduces the need for Border Force officers to deal with people who pose a threat on arrival.

Where a person arrives in the UK without the necessary entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, we already have existing powers to capture their biometric information, and we can use reasonable force where necessary to do so. We already check biometrics at the UK borders, using e-gates that can match facial images to images contained in passports. For visa holders, we check their fingerprints at the primary control desks. Let me remind the Committee that the Government remain vigilant in their duty to protect our borders. As recently as March 2025, we introduced new legislation which significantly enhanced our ability to collect such biometric information at the border.

I know the noble Lord has good intentions, but were this new clause to be enacted, all foreign nationals would need to provide their biometric information, including people who are normally excused. This would include people who are physically unable to enrol with their biometrics or who are exempt from immigration control, such as sovereigns or heads of state, and that is neither practical nor proportionate.

For me, this is a key issue. The noble Lord and I are both former Northern Ireland Minsters, so he will know that under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As part of the common travel area arrangements, the UK does not operate routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area, and no immigration checks are undertaken. Under his new clause, we would be unable to implement a policy of taking everyone’s biometric information as they enter Northern Ireland from Ireland without introducing a hard border. I do not think he wants that, but that is what the new clause would mean.

Turning to Amendment 149, on seizing identity documents—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

If the Minister thinks that my noble friend’s amendment has some merit, one way of dealing with this issue as the EU implements its EES checks would be to exchange biometric information with the Irish Republic so that, as people come into the common travel area, we can collect that information. Earlier, we talked about sharing information with our European partners. Dealing with the issue in this way does not require a hard border on the island of Ireland, but it hardens the border around the common travel area, which I think would be welcomed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With all due respect to the noble Lord, I was moving to the view that the amendment does not have merit; that is the nature of political life, as the noble Lord knows. Having poured that large bucket of cold water on Amendment 102, let me return to the question of Amendment 149 and seizing identity documents.

I reassure noble Lords that immigration officers already have powers to seize and retain identity documents and to require them to be produced. Under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers have a power to require persons, on examination, to produce identity and other relevant documents, which may then be retained until the person is given permission to enter the UK. It allows immigration officers to take all reasonable steps and gives them powers to search and to seize documents relating to identity. Schedule 3 to that Act extends the powers in Schedule 2 to persons liable to detention for the purpose of deportation. Furthermore, there is a power in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimant, etc.) Act 2004 whereby relevant documents in the possession of the Secretary of State may be retained where they may facilitate the removal of a person who may be liable to removal. Amendment 149 is therefore covered by existing legislation.

As for the noble Lord’s third amendment, on the issuance of biometric documents to individuals whose identity documents have been seized, again I must gently express some reservations. We already issue foreign nationals with status in the UK with biometric immigration documents in the form of an e-visa. Unlike physical documents, they cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with. We also issue asylum seekers with application registration cards that contain facial images and evidence that they have submitted a protection claim. We do not issue biometric immigration documents that confirm the holder’s status to people who have no lawful UK immigration status or an outstanding protection claim in the UK. We do not provide documentation that could be used for identification purposes, to avoid creating the impression that someone is in the UK lawfully.

Since November 2024, we have stopped issuing physical biometric cards to foreign nationals granted status in the UK. Having to issue physical biometric cards to people whose documents were seized would generate additional costs—without adding them up, there would be several million pounds’ worth. It is also important that the Committee recalls that the misuse of identity documents is a criminal offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, and the supply of equipment for the creation of false documents is similarly proscribed under the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015.

I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord. Obviously, he can return to this on Report if he wishes to, but I hope that he will withdraw his amendment, having heard my defence of the Government’s position.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but I do not agree with his position. This would have provided him with an opportunity to send a very strong signal out to all those watching these debates and following the issue of immigration very closely. There was a lot in what he said about officials having the power and how they could do this and that, and it was all tentative again. My amendments sought to ensure that they did these things. That is the only way we can get a degree of certainty. I hope that we can return to this in the future. I strongly suspect that the Government’s position on this will have to change but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam (Con)]

With respect, it is not completely different. The fact is that the Australians arranged a successful deterrent, which is what all Governments are trying to achieve. What the last Conservative Government were trying to achieve was obviously not entirely the same as the Nauru/Australian example, but it was broadly the same, and, as the noble Lord must agree, with many checks and balances to ensure that people were properly treated.

That is what the present Government are throwing away. All that effort, finance, agreement, and legislation—three Bills, I think—are being chucked aside for, in effect, nothing, because this Bill gives no deterrent factor. It is completely absent. We all agree that the gangs should be smashed, and that work can carry on side by side with any other work on a deterrent, but there is no work on a deterrent going on of the kind that the previous Government had. We need a deterrent.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Can we just nail this myth? It was not a deterrent. Between the signing of the partnership with Rwanda on 14 April 2022 and 5 July 2024 when this Government took office, 83,500 people arrived by small boats—some deterrent.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

It was never deployed as a deterrent. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, it was never put into operation. The idea that the Minister can say that it did not work is nonsense, because it was never actually tried. First, there were all the judicial reviews and additional challenges that were sustained, and then there was the general election, so it never actually happened. It is a myth to believe that it somehow did not work or that it was not a deterrent. We do not know, frankly.

The great pity about all this is that we will never know whether it would have been a deterrent. I fully confess that I do not know whether it would have acted as a deterrent or not; no one could say until we saw the effects. Indeed, in the case of Australia, it was quite a long time before people realised that this was an effective deterrent. It took about 10 years before it was fully realised that this did work and was a means of doing it, and that would likely have been the case here. A policy without a serious deterrent is not really a policy at all; that is the problem.

I am sure the Minister will say that what the Government are now doing with France has considerable potential as a means of deterring people from coming across, but that depends on relations with France. I am all in favour of having favourable relations with France. I believe that the UK and France are particularly important countries in the European context these days, and I fully commend what happened over the last couple of days—I think King Charles in particular played a blinder in bringing the countries together—but none the less, we have to look at whether this will work as a deterrent. I understand that the talks on this are going on this afternoon, and that therefore the Minister may not have much information and may be unable answer questions, but currently only 6% of people will be sent back under this scheme. It is hardly a deterrent to say that 94% of people will stay here and only 6% will be sent back.

Obviously, it is sensible to start in a small way and ramp it up as time goes on, and I am sure that the Minister will argue that, but if you have a whole gamut of people coming over and only a small proportion are returned, what sort of deterrent is that? Will it not also fall foul of the problems that the previous Government had, where any individual who is asked to go back to France immediately has recourse to a lawyer who seeks to keep them here, and maybe succeeds in that effort, and therefore the whole scheme begins to unwind in a morass of legal challenges? That is what happened to the last Government: they became bogged down in a whole series of legal challenges. That is the danger, and that is why we are becoming afraid of the ECHR. The Government have had a year to think about all this. Unless they have a clear plan that encompasses these other extraneous elements that protrude into the problems they have, there is no serious possibility of stopping the boats.

Therefore, while I understand why the Government, having decided not to go ahead with the Rwanda plan, have given themselves the resources that were devoted to Rwanda and used them in a new way to develop the Bill, they will have to go very much further if they hope to stop the boats. I am afraid that we need a much more decisive, thorough and holistic approach to this problem than that we have had so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this clause in the Bill and support the Government’s action. The rest of it was very irresponsible. Getting rid of that project, which was announced in this Chamber by the Labour Party leader at that time, was the right thing to do. It also means that we can have better standing with our international colleagues, as we have had already with the UNHCR and with the French President, who was quoted as saying that this was a way of getting a better relationship with France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for this debate on Clause 37. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for forcing them to go through it yet again. I admire their tenacity and that of those on all sides who were in this House at the time for sticking at it and making this House’s views known to the then Government during the passage of what became the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Clause 37 repeals the Act in its entirety. There is an honest disagreement between me and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Jackson, Lord Harper and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as to the objectives of the Government. I will try to explain why we have that honest political disagreement.

This Government have taken a view that the Act was expensive, ineffective, contrary to human rights legislation and not greatly meaningful in its delivery of the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, outlined clearly, including the potential for a deterrent. Between the signing of the agreement on 14 April 2022 and the formation of the new Government on 5 July, 83,500 people arrived in small boats, with 31,079 of them arriving in the year to March 2024. Deterrent or not, I do not think that individuals who were arriving were closely monitoring the passage of that Bill. They were looking at the principles behind it, and there was no deterrent there.

As to cost, I used the figure of £700 million, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked me to break it down for him. I am happy to help him with that figure: £290 million was paid to the Rwandan Government as an arrangement fee; £50 million was spent on flights, contemporaneous and in advance; £95 million was spent on detention centres; £280 million was spent on the fixed costs of the scheme. I confess that I slightly underestimated in saying £700 million, because £715 million has been spent to date. If we look at the savings that potentially are in play and not just at the £715 million that we spent, we find that we have potentially saved £100 million in upcoming annual payments to Rwanda, and a further £120 million that the UK would otherwise be liable to pay once 300 individuals had been relocated to Rwanda. That is without the additional internal staffing and operational costs in government to date.

I remind the Committee that with the £715 million, plus the further costs, four people went to Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is indicating to me that the scheme did not have time to develop, but four people went to Rwanda. If not all of them, the majority of them were volunteers. Is that a good use of taxpayers’ money? Let us not rely on me, who has a manifesto commitment on this issue, which the Government are implementing. I happened to be in Committee on Monday 8 July, when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said:

“I also happen to think that many of us opposed the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish—because it was not going to work. That is why we opposed it”.—[Official Report, 8/7/25; col. 1248.]


When I was nobbut a lad in the Labour Party and the then John Selwyn Gummer was a Minister, I never thought I would stand up in the House of Lords several years later and say, “I agree with John”, but I agree with John, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it was a load of old rubbish. That is from a Conservative Back-Bencher who has held very high office in government.

I appreciate that three former Members of Parliament in another place—four, in fact, with the noble Lord, Lord Horam—expressed a view, but it is not one that I share.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but, ultimately, this is a decision about whether or not Rwanda is a safe country. Do the UK Government believe that Rwanda is a safe country or do they agree with the Supreme Court that it is an unsafe country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Members of this House expressed strong concerns when the Bill, now an Act, was debated, particularly about the previous Government’s statements under Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. They could not say that the Bill was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government were seeking to overrule a Supreme Court judgment that the Act did not provide safeguards when Rwanda was subsequently deemed unsafe. I confess that I was not here; I was having what we call an interregnum between the House of Commons and this House. However, having watched the debate from afar, I know that that was one of the concerns that were raised. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report said it was incompatible with the ECHR and, more widely, that the policy outsourced the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention and referred to the difficulties in guaranteeing compliance with the principles of that legislation.

I think that was the reason that members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, and from the Cross Benches, and a number of Conservative Peers, rejected the proposal on several occasions, until such time as the then House of Commons fulfilled its manifesto commitment—I accept that—to bring the scheme in. The scheme was never going to work.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Before I let the noble Lord, Lord Jackson in, let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who asked how I know. I know because four people volunteered to go on the scheme. The scheme did not work and would not work. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, confirmed his view that it did not work. This is an honest disagreement between us, and that is where we are.

I will take the noble Lord’s intervention before I carry on.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am delighted that the Minister prays in aid my estimable noble friend Lord Deben. Three things are certain in life: death, taxes and the fact that he will disagree with his Front Bench.

That aside, on safety, for the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court did not express a conclusive view about the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda. That issue was not the subject of detailed argument at the hearing of the appeal. On the refoulement issue, the Supreme Court concluded that it was unnecessary for it to determine it. As such, the High Court’s determination that Rwanda was in general safe for individuals removed under the MEDP was not disturbed. That is the fact of the matter.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Politics is about the exchange of views and ideas and the delivery of policies. I think we have reached an impasse. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Opposition Back-Benchers think that the scheme would have worked, and the Government think that the scheme was expensive and would not have worked. That is the clear blue—or red—water between us on this. I am grateful for my noble friend Lady Lister’s support for the Government in taking the steps that we have taken.

The UK will also exit the UK-Rwanda treaty as part of ending this partnership and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to repeal the safety of Rwanda Act. Clause 37 will achieve this. In doing so, it is also important that we address the issue that has been endemic in the discussion we have had today, that somehow this was a deterrent and the removal of this clause and the removal of the scheme will therefore end that deterrent. I just refer noble Lords to Clauses 1 to 12 of this Bill, which establish a new Border Security Command and put in place resources of £150 million and £280 million over the next few years to establish very strong action on the meaningful issues that are important to us all.

We have created co-operation with the French, Dutch, Germans and Belgians through the new Border Security Commander on tackling the small boats at source. There is the work that the border commander has been doing with the French Government as part of the preparations for today’s conference between the President of the Republic of France, the Prime Minister and other representatives. There is also the work that the Government will do under Clauses 13 to 17 of this Bill to create new offences to bring people to justice if they provide activity on the issue of supplying articles, handling articles, collecting information and offences committed outside the United Kingdom. There is also Clause 18 on endangering another during the sea crossing to the United Kingdom, as well as powers to search on electronic devices to bring people to justice in that way. This Bill is full of deterrent activity that, if and when implemented by the Government after being passed by both Houses, will make a real difference.

I am pleased to say to the House that, hot off the press today, the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of France have now finished their deliberations and, speaking with the President at a news conference just a few moments ago, the Prime Minister has confirmed a new UK-France returns pilot scheme. The Prime Minister has said that the scheme will come into force in a matter of weeks. Migrants arriving via small boats will be detained and returned to France in short order. In exchange for every return, a different individual will be allowed to come here via safe and legal routes, which individuals in this House have been pressing this Government to have. There will be strict security checks, open only to those who have not tried to enter the UK illegally. The suggestion is that, under the pilot, 50 people per week will be sent back to France across the channel—as I recall, even in this very week alone, that will be 46 more than left under the Rwanda scheme.

For the first time since we left the European Union, the UK has secured a bilateral agreement with France to pilot the return of illegal migrants across the channel. This tightly controlled pilot will be, I hope, the premise for further action downstream. The UK-France summit today has seen both nations strengthen co-operation on border security. We know that there is no silver bullet on this issue. We know that the returns pilot is part of a border crackdown, but it is the culmination—and this goes again to the value of the Border Security Command in this Bill—of six months’ work by the Border Security Commander with the Home Secretary, my right honourable friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, the French Interior Minister and the French-established new Compagnie de Marche. That is real progress in developing real, positive action. I can even go back to our discussions about Europol earlier today, on ensuring that we tackle smuggling gangs and disrupt their business model, that we have stronger law enforcement and that we dismantle this multi-million pound black market. This is not just about gangs; it is about lives.

The Rwanda scheme was ineffective, costly and did not deliver. The Government’s proposals in this Bill, and the statements by the Prime Minister and the President of France today, will add greatly to the potential to impact this heinous crime and business.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can I just check, now that the Prime Minister and the French President have announced the details of the scheme, whether the Minister’s contention is that what has been announced today—once it has had a pilot and been scaled up—is, in effect, the Government’s attempt to put in place a deterrent that he thinks will, over the term of this Parliament, have the desired effect of driving down the number of people crossing the channel to effectively as low as you can get it? Is that his contention?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are doing a range of things. The border security Bill is one of them. We have put the £150 million and £280 million for future SRs into the Border Security Command. Our work with the French so far has prevented 12,000 crossings this year alone through joint patrols and intelligence services. We are funding a new unit of specialist officers to increase patrols. We have a new specialist intelligence unit stationed at Dunkirk being launched today. Additional drone pilots are being launched. We have funded an extra 100 specialist National Crime Agency intelligence officers who will be stationed with Europol—to go back to the points that we mentioned earlier.

The NCA has seized 600 boats. Germany is already looking at changing its laws because of action that we have taken with the Border Security Command. We have put in place a landmark agreement with Iraq. We have practised and worked through illegal working raids. Arrests have increased by 50%. We have boosted asylum decision-making. Since the election, 30,000 people have gone back—a 12% increase since the previous Government. We have work upstream with Vietnam and Albania to stop people making the journeys from those countries in the first place.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

So he really cannot say.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Look, if we are going to talk about more people coming, can we go back to 2016? Can the noble Lord tell me how many people arrived on a small boat in 2016, compared with July 2024? I will tell him. There were 400 in 2016 and over 30,000 in 2024. We have a legacy of complete and utter failure by that Government, of which he was a significant member in the Cabinet. These are strong, practical measures; the Rwanda scheme was not, which is why I commend Clause 37 to the House. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what we have said. If he chooses to vote at some point to remove Clause 37, I and, I think, many other Members of this House will stand together to oppose him.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It has been a microcosm of the numerous debates in your Lordships’ House over the last few years. I was momentarily flattered by being afforded the word “gallant” by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but I realised quite quickly that it was insincere.

It will not be surprising to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Government Benches that I disagree with more or less everything that they have said in this debate. In relation to the deterrent, the Government have not created a credible alternative to the Rwanda scheme. They have not grasped the necessity of stopping demand by deterring illegal migrants from making the journey in the first place. I simply cannot understand how they believe that they can stop the boats without a deterrent. The Minister implies that the Bill is a deterrent. The Government claim that simply instituting a Border Security Commander with nothing to command and creating three new offences will deter illegal migrants. This is clearly not the case.

Picking up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I remind the Government of what David Coleman, the Emeritus Professor of Demography at the University of Oxford, told the Public Bill Committee in the other place. He said:

“It is, I think, very much second best to the idea of trying to deter migration for asylum claiming in the first place. That, of course, was dismissed by the present Government as being unfeasible, unworkable and unkind, so the Rwanda scheme was scrapped… it seems to me that the only obvious way of deterring movement to Britain is by making the movement to Britain unattractive”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 27/2/25; col. 50.]


Regardless of what the Minister or the Liberal Democrats want to claim, offshoring to a safe third country has worked. As has already been mentioned, particularly by my noble friends, Australia is the only country that has been successful in stopping small boats—by establishing offshore detention facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. This reduced arrivals to virtually zero. It has worked so far for the Government to claim that Rwanda would never have worked. This is manifestly false. I hope that the Government come to realise what a mistake they have made by not instituting a deterrent. However, for now, I will withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 102A, 115A, 115B, 115C, 115D, and 115E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to repeal Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. This section sets out that “relevant persons” may be detained for as long as the Secretary of State deems “reasonably necessary” to carry out examinations or removal, to make an immigration or deportation decision, or to issue removal directions.

As with many of the decisions to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act, I question the noble Baroness’s intent on this point. Why does she oppose the exercise of reasonable detention to carry out an examination or to facilitate a removal process? As the Government themselves recognise, these are important powers that allow the Government to facilitate an operable migration system. If even this Government believe that Section 12 should be retained, this tells us something about its necessity.

I wonder what the noble Baroness proposes instead. What would she do, for instance, if a person refused to undergo an examination? What would she do if a decision was made to remove a person but, because the state could not detain them, they simply ran off? This does not seem to us to be a reasonable or proportionate amendment and I therefore oppose it on this basis.

Amendment 112 in my name seeks to reintroduce Section 11 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the Government in this Bill are proposing to repeal. This Section of the Act introduced a new legal power to detain individuals specifically in connection with the Government’s duty to remove people who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be clear about the provisions in this Section. Section 11 provided to immigration officers and the Home Secretary the clear, legal authority to detain people who fell within the removal duty framework, to hold them lawfully during processing and to enforce removals, while also incorporating safeguards for children and pregnant women. What in this do the Government disagree with so much that they feel that they have to repeal this Section of the Act? We are clear on this side of the House that people who come to the United Kingdom illegally must be removed.

I will set out my position briefly and then invite the Minister to explain why he and the Government want to axe this provision from law. We believe, as we have set out before, that those who come to the United Kingdom illegally should not be allowed to remain. What is the purpose of having law if we allow people to break it with no consequence? Is this not the equivalent of allowing shoplifters to hang on to what they have stolen? Is this not the same as allowing those who break into people’s homes to keep hold of the things they have taken after they have been caught?

Without this provision, we are directly allowing people to benefit from their criminality. To us on this side, it is wholly irresponsible for a Government to allow those who break our laws to benefit from their activities. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to really defend what his Government are doing. To us, the decision to repeal Section 11 seems reckless.

Furthermore, our Amendment 113 similarly seeks to reintroduce Section 13 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which sought to reduce the administrative burden on our courts by reducing the chance that we would be faced with vexatious appeals early on in the detention process. This Section also sought to delay access to immigration bail. This has many benefits, the main one being that it addressed the problem that individuals who crossed illegally could be released on bail before the Home Office could organise their removal, leading to long delays, absconding or the person simply disappearing into the system.

Removing this provision poses a clear risk of complicating the removals process, clogging up the courts and fundamentally undermining the Government’s capacity and ability to get those people who should not be in this country out. I hope the Minister will similarly explain why the Government think this move is a sensible one. Can he assure the House now that this decision will not create any increase in the backlog, and can he confirm that this will not delay the process of removing those who come here illegally? Can he commit now to the reincorporation of Section 13 into this Bill, if any of his answers to those questions are in doubt?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I first thank my noble friend Lady Lister for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I will first acknowledge the question she raised on the adults at risk in detention guidance. I happen to know also that she has tabled a Parliamentary Question, which is due for answer shortly. I expect to respond to the review within a couple of months and any changes in the proposals that are brought forward will be subject to parliamentary approval. I will be answering her question in much more detail in very short order, and I hope that will help her to resolve that issue.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, the shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their contributions. I will start with Amendments 112 and 113 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. The amendments seek to retain the powers of detention and the powers to grant immigration bail where a person is subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. They are reliant on the provision to impose a duty to remove on the Secretary of State, which this Government are seeking to repeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yet again, by speaking against the amendments in this group.

I shall touch on each one briefly, starting with Amendment 103, which would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, as set out in the explanatory note. The explanatory note provided by the noble Baroness has a flaw. It fails to recognise that Section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to which her amendment ultimately pertains, refers both to a person who has claimed to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking in bad faith and to a person who is a threat to public order. Let us be clear about who we are talking about in these amendments: people who have tried to use modern slavery protections in bad faith and people who are a threat to public order and public safety for British citizens. The clause as it stands would allow the Government to remove these people from the United Kingdom and ensure that they would not be eligible for indefinite leave to remain as a result of their claims made in bad faith of eligibility and the modern slavery protections.

We on these Benches raised our concerns about those who would seek to exploit loopholes in modern slavery protections at some length earlier this week. The provisions in Clause 29 of the Illegal Migration Act seek to address this by allowing the Government to identify bad actors who are abusing the system and to remove them from the United Kingdom. Not to do so would be an insult to all those people who suffer at the hands of slave-masters and who should rightly hold a genuine entitlement to protection. The amendment seeks to apply those protections to those who are acting in bad faith or those who are a threat to public order. It is no wonder that even this Government have decided, in their drafting of the Bill, to keep this provision in force.

I seriously question why the noble Baroness seeks to question modern slavery protections in such a way. As such, we cannot support the amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has approached the discussion. I hope that I can convince her straight away by saying that the Government are steadfast in their commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors. That is why we had the debate on Tuesday, in which I re-emphasised that.

Care should be taken to avoid unintentionally weakening the protections afforded to victims of modern slavery and to public order. Repealing the majority of the modern slavery measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would do just that. That Act put protections of and support for potential victims of modern slavery, stemming from the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, into primary domestic legislation for the first time, building on the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The proposed amendments would repeal these.

I come at it from a different perspective from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. In my view, the measures being lost would include the right to a recovery period in the national referral mechanism; the circumstances in which confirmed victims may be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK; and where the rights and protections can be withheld on the grounds of public order or bad faith, in line with Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. These measures ensure that support and protections and removal from the modern slavery system are available to all who require them. It is vital to retain them.

Section 29 is the sole modern slavery measure in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be retained. It would, if commenced, amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. Here, I share the view of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that we can examine the national referral mechanism and agree with partners our priorities for long-term reform.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act sets out a range of measures. It is not necessary to replicate that defence elsewhere in legislation. On restricting information shared in respect of the modern slavery identification, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides certain bodies in England and Wales with a statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State. The information provided for that notification enables the UK to fulfil its international and other obligations.

The duty to notify is discharged for consenting adults by making a referral to the national referral mechanism or, where the adult does not consent, by completing an anonymous entry on the digital system. This information allows us to provide a better picture of modern slavery and helps improve law enforcement responses. It does not include information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to that information being included. Child victims do not need to consent. If a person is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are eligible for the recovery period that I mentioned earlier. Imposing restrictions on the information provided would be to the detriment of our obligations to such vulnerable people.

I agree that it is vital that the UK complies with its obligations, including as a signatory to the Council of Europe convention that the noble Lord mentioned. Implementation and compliance with these obligations does not require full incorporation into UK law. I say on behalf of the Government that the UK complies with its obligations under the convention by a combination of measures contained in domestic legislation, guidance and the criminal justice system. The modern slavery statutory guidance provides a framework where we can ensure that the convention continues to be monitored through reporting of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Finally, the Government are committed to ensuring victims can access the necessary support for whatever length of time it is required. Following a positive conclusive grounds decision, confirmed victims of modern slavery receive support from the modern slavery victim care contract and can continue receiving tailored needs-based support through the recovery needs assessment process via the NHS, local authorities and others. That specialist support also includes assistance to access the labour market, vocational training and education and application support for a national insurance number. The Government do not place an overall time limit on how long a victim can remain in support. Following a conclusive grounds decision, victims of modern slavery are considered for temporary permission to stay. That is all important and gives real support to victims of modern slavery.

I have not mentioned the amendments individually, but collectively that response shows that the Government are committed to their international obligations, want to support victims of modern slavery and believe that the retention of the measures in the migration Act is vital to doing that in a fair and appropriate way. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, does not disappoint me because these were his Government’s provisions, so of course I would have expected him to speak in support of them. I think that my speech was in fact accurate as to the content of the amendment that he referred to and was fuller than the explanatory statement.

I think that we and Conservative noble Lords start from different points of view; they seem still to demonstrate a culture of disbelief with regard to people who claim that they were victims of modern slavery and as to whether one gives them the benefit of the doubt as a starting point or disbelieves them. Using terms such as “real victims” discounts the fact that there is an NRM procedure with the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds arrangements that the Minister has referred to. We do indeed have Section 45, which provides a defence in certain circumstances, but regarding only some offences. As I have said, that is inadequate.

I will not go back over the information-sharing arguments because of the time and because we have—well, I have—addressed them today. However, secure reporting is understood to be very important, including by the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and the current anti-slavery commissioner has said:

“We need to be able to give these victims the confidence that if they do come forward their perpetrators will be held to account and that they will continue to receive the support and care that they need”.


The current director of labour market enforcement has also said:

“There needs to be an expectation on the part of workers that if they go to an authority to demonstrate that they are being exploited, that will not prejudice their right to be in this country”.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a very wide discussion, wider than I anticipated. I sense that at the end of the debate I probably will not have satisfied many noble Lords in the Chamber today, but such is the nature of government responsibilities.

I was not intending to say this, but given the comments from the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Empey, and others, I think it is worth setting out that the Government have taken this issue extremely seriously in their manifesto and in their actions, not just in this Bill but in the immigration White Paper that we have published and in the unilateral actions that we have taken independently without requiring legislation. The issues of illegal entry, defining our asylum system and tackling an effective immigration system are extremely important. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments, but it is worth placing on the record again that this Government have spent time talking to their allies in France and agreed the treaty looking at an exchange. It is a pilot that will be looked at in detail. We are working with the Calais Group of Belgium, France and Holland on international action to stop smuggling. We are working downstream with the German Government to tackle issues to do with boat manufacture and transfers. We have signed agreements with Iraq. We have put powers in this Bill to establish the Border Security Command and to make some activities criminal, which we discussed earlier today. We have a commitment to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament and we have saved £1 billion-worth of expenditure over the past 12 months by reducing the number of hotels being used but also by maximising the use of those hotels. We have put a lot of energy into cracking down on illegal working to try to stop some of the pull factors that make people think they can come to this country, disappear into the system and work illegally. We are trying to crack down on that and we have increased the number of arrests and prosecutions. We have speeded up the asylum claims system, because at the heart of this is determining who has a right to stay in this country and removing those who do not. We have speeded up the processing of asylum claims and removed 9,000-plus people in the past 12 months who have no right to be in the UK.

A number of Members have said that the Bill seems to have been frozen in time and things have moved on. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will have a debate about how lily-livered she is—we can discuss that in due course in a friendly, competitive way—but we are continually looking at these issues. The measures that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward this week are based on the assessment that she has made of the situation, which is ongoing. To give the example of this week, if we find that family reunion applications have increased by over 100% in the past two years and there is a big issue in terms of people coming to the country through that route, it is right to suspend that family reunion route to review it, as we will do very shortly. That is what Governments do. We look at the problems and challenges and we review it.

We have set out measures in this Bill to establish a fairer, stronger system. We have done the same in the immigration White Paper and we have taken actions accordingly elsewhere to have a purpose. I do not want to see the type of concerns, distrust and disorder that there are around hotel use and people who are here while their asylum claims are assessed. I want to understand those concerns. I am not making this a party-political issue. The concerns that have arisen over the past nine years are driven by small boat crossings. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, stood at this Dispatch Box while I had my interregnum from both Houses of Parliament and made cases for the Rwanda scheme, which he has admitted today had some flaws and which we have taken a decision to repeal in full. I think that we have a shared understanding from all sides of this Committee that this is an issue that needs to be challenged and tackled, which is why we are setting out the measures today.

There are a number of amendments before us, and I shall try to talk to them as a whole, starting with the Opposition Front Bench, because they are the Opposition and they are the Front Bench, so it is fair to start with them. I shall return to my noble friend Lord Browne in due course.

The two amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, Amendments 192 and 193, seek to widen the current inadmissibility provisions. Currently, individuals can be removed to a safe third country if their asylum claims are declared inadmissible. That includes illegal entrants as well as other claimants whose asylum claims are liable to inadmissibility. The inadmissibility process is intended to support the safety of asylum seekers and the integrity of the border, as well as the fairness of the asylum system, by encouraging asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, deterring them from making unnecessary and dangerous onward journeys to the UK.

For a claim to be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered by the UK, the individual has to have been present previously in, or have a connection to, a safe third country where they could claim asylum or could reasonably be expected to have done so. Under Amendment 192, anyone who arrives illegally must have their asylum claim declared inadmissible. With due respect to the noble Lord, that amendment would mean in practice that all asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally would have their claims declared inadmissible, with no regard for whether there is a safe third country for them to return to. Such an approach would, in my view, mean a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible, which in turn would mean that we could not establish whether they qualify for refugee status. In that scenario, those individuals would be in a holding position, unable to be removed, including those with genuine claims who would have their claims assessed now under the system, where 60%-plus of people who make a claim have it approved. That is a difficult challenge. It is with integrity that the noble Lord has moved the amendment, but it is difficult, and it would not have the objective that he seeks.

Similarly, with Amendment 193, the noble Lord also seeks to ensure that individuals will have their asylum claims declared inadmissible when they fail to register an asylum claim within 12 months. Again, there is a motive behind that which has an integrity, but it is one that I cannot share. Some people do lodge asylum claims in an opportunistic manner, sometimes to extend the time that they can remain in the UK, but this amendment would not deal with that particular issue. It would simply extend indefinitely the time in which those individuals would be able to remain in the UK because, without an ability to examine their claims, we cannot determine whether they qualify for refugee status.

The amendment also fails to take account of sur place refugees, which would mean that anyone lawfully in the UK from a country in which the circumstances have changed—and we have had much discussion around that today—in a significant and detrimental way, for example if there has been an armed conflict in the 12 months they have been here, would be unable to avail themselves of the protection of the UK.

In contrast to that, we have the amendment from my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord Hope, have spoken in support of it. That amendment would repeal Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which amends Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which itself provides that asylum claims from EU nationals must be declared inadmissible to the UK’s asylum system, other than where exceptional circumstances apply. Inadmissibility procedures in this section allow a state to declare an asylum claim inadmissible when the claim is made by nationals of countries that are declared generally safe. It is an important, long-standing process that can help prevent asylum claims from nationals of countries that are safe absorbing the limited resources that we have.

I understand the motivation behind the amendment from my noble friend, but I remind the Committee that Section 59 is not yet fully commenced. Indeed, the only part of Section 59 that has been commenced is the power to add or remove countries from that list of safe countries. However, and this goes to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government believe that it is important and the right approach to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe. That addresses the point that my noble friend made.

Amendment 203J has had support from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Lawlor, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who proposed this system. We have had some discussion around ECHR Article 8 and the French treaty from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Let me just say again, for clarity and for this Committee, that the Government believe in the ECHR and are committed to our international obligations, for a whole range of reasons that I have outlined on a number of occasions, but that does not mean that we cannot look at things.

The Article 8 provisions that we have trailed that we will look at, which again goes to other points that have been made by other noble Lords, are issues that we will return to in the coming months that we want to consult on, including consulting colleagues in the judiciary to ensure that we have an understanding of the interpretation of Article 8 and whether it needs to be tightened to ensure that the country is not taken for a ride by individuals using that premise under circumstances where effectively they are using it as a last resort, in a way in which we all really think is inadmissible, to use a word that we have used a lot today. I do not think that that is appropriate. That Article 8 review is ongoing. The French treaty that we have established is in pilot form and we will review it during this month. We hope to extend it further and I shall report back to the House on the numbers involved. There are other tools that we are working on to ensure that we help put some energy into tackling this important problem.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking this intervention and grateful to him as well for explaining in general terms what the Government are thinking about. I understand why at the moment he cannot be more specific. He says that the consideration is to Article 8, but should it not also embrace Article 3, which is very often used in circumstances where many people would raise a question as to how appropriate it is?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am happy to examine that. We have said publicly that Article 8 is the focus for our examination, discussion and wider review. However, that does not mean—and this is the key, important point—that we will ditch the ECHR. Although it is 75 to 80 years old and was established in 1950, as a number of noble Lords, including Lord Kerr, have mentioned, it establishes a number of basic rights, which are important to me and to the people we represent and the people in our communities. They set a basic framework, but that does not mean that we cannot look at how those interpretations are made. That is why we are trying to do that.

To come back to Amendment 203J from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, this would impose a legal obligation to refuse all asylum claims made by illegal or other irregular migrants who travel from safe countries. The stated intention of the measure is to deter such people from using dangerous and illegal methods to enter the UK. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this: the amendment would not achieve that aim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without consideration of the merits of their claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. We may not want to be in the refugee convention, but we are in it and we cannot in my view unilaterally breach those obligations accordingly. Even if a person’s asylum claim could be refused on account of this measure, the humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate the difficulty of the position from which he speaks, and the difficulty of the position of the Home Office in this regard. The point of my amendment was not to breach international law. As I hope I made clear, the wording of the convention in Article 31.1 is clear: one has to come directly. This is an opportunity for the Government to comply with their stated intention of not breaching international law but still deliver a policy that has a deterrent. This is a vital opportunity and I implore the Minister not to miss it just because it is coming from me.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me reassure the noble Lord that this is not personal. I would welcome any suggestions from across the Committee. If we reject the amendment in due course, as he is right to suspect we will, it will not be because it comes from him; if anyone else had moved it, it would still be rejected. The noble Lord knows better than anybody the challenges of the roles that we have in the Home Office. I am grateful for his suggestions and we are trying to examine them.

The key point—maybe this will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a chance to think again as well—is that the merits of the claim could attract an appeal right, removing the possibility provided under the current system for certifying the claim as clearly unfounded. We would end up with even more litigation, which may help lawyers but would not help the resolution of the challenge at home. Without the specific further provisions in the legislation, our decision would need to explain why we considered that this measure applied in an individual’s particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised alleging that their life and liberty were threatened in what we consider to be a safe third country. It is nothing personal to the noble Lord, but we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 203E, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. It seeks to provide a definition of “exceptional circumstances” for the working of our inadmissibility provisions. It also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of generally safe countries to which inadmissibility provisions may apply in the future.

I have explained how exceptional circumstances bear on the inadmissibility process. Section 80A already sets out examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, which relate to states derogating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These examples are not exhaustive, and there may be case-by-case instances where exceptional circumstances are identified and where that inadmissibility should not be applied. At present, the question of whether a person’s evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. The amendment would replace this established approach.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. He has referred to derogation from the ECHR. I wonder what consideration the Government are now giving to Georgia, which is in clear breach of the ECHR and has taken itself out of the Council of Europe, because it knows it has to do so. This is clearly a country that has derogated. Is that something that the Government are looking at? We can do it by regulation, as we are going to talk about, but since this is the only power that the Government are holding on to, this is a country that needs to be looked at very seriously indeed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

To add to that, that is a country in which our Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual Ministers. Is there any correlation between what the Foreign Office does and what the Home Office considers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will take a whole-government approach to this issue. I would like to reflect on this with colleagues who are directly dealing with the matter and will respond. We are in Committee, but there will be opportunities later, on Report, to examine this further. I will take away the comments that have been made and contact both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord accordingly.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I think of as my noble friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, although the list has been commenced, the provisions necessary for it to have any effect have not been. If this Government decide that it is right to change the list for inadmissibility decisions, we will at that time, based on up-to-date information, consider whether any countries should be removed. That goes to the point that has been made about Georgia. We will consider those issues and reflect upon them using the appropriate parliamentary procedures, according to the criteria set out in Section 80AA.

In summary, the Government have a solid approach to try to tackle this issue. Some of the measures are still in the pipeline because of the legislation, but there is a strong series of measures to try to make an impact on what is a genuinely serious issue facing this country—one that needs resolution and which has built up over a number of years. However, I do not believe that the series of amendments in this group would assist in that process. For the moment at least, I ask my noble friend Lord Browne, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to withdraw his amendment, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Official Opposition, and Members from the Liberal Democrats not to press their amendments. There will be an opportunity to reflect on what has been said, with an examination of Hansard tomorrow. There will be opportunities on Report, if need be. For the moment, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I may not be the Minister’s parliamentary friend but I am not his parliamentary enemy either. Seeing as he is in an emollient mood, might I prevail upon him further? He says that a government-wide approach is being taken to the ECHR. His colleague in the Foreign Office has told me twice that they are not looking at the refugee convention of 1951. Surely we have to open a discussion with our allies and look at how that has been operating since its inception in 1951. Perhaps the Minister could persuade his friends in the Government to look at that convention.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, will know that the Government keep all matters under review at all times—that is the political, Civil Service direct answer in response to this matter. I assure him that, from my perspective, our international obligations are extremely important. That does not mean that we cannot examine how we interpret those actions. That does not mean that we cannot examine the measures in this Bill, announced by my right honourable friend this week, and the direct executive actions we can take around hotel use and other things, to ensure that we put some pressure and energy into the system to achieve—let us end on a united note—the objective of all Members of this House to have a resolution to people being exploited by criminal gangs, in small boats, subverting immigration and asylum systems in the United Kingdom. With that, I hope noble Lords will reflect on my comments and do the right thing.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I may have misunderstood him, but did the Minister say that the Government would consider derogating from Article 3?

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

I know that. I may have misunderstood what the Minister said, but, if that was the case, I point out that that is not possible.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The intervention that I took invited me to examine that issue. I have said I will examine it, but, as I said in response to that question, the focus of the Government as a whole is on Article 8. We anticipate energising the review of Article 8 to ensure that we examine how it is currently interpreted, what actions are taken as a result of the article, and whether further guidance needs to be issued about those matters. In response to the intervention as to whether I would look at Article 3, I have said that I will look at the point that was made then. The focus of the Government is Article 8.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

To clarify the position, I was not suggesting derogating from Article 8. The possibility of giving guidance to judges is, I believe, under consideration and it may be that, in resolving issues under both Articles 8 and 3, it might be necessary for the Government to think again as to what guidance to give to courts.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thought that was what I said. I hope we can agree, at the end of this group of amendments that was livelier than I initially anticipated, that the Committee can support the Government’s direction of travel. However, I hope the amendment before the Committee today will be withdrawn.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I offer my final remarks with the traditional thanks to all those who have contributed to the debate on Amendment 104. When I saw that I had the overt support of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Brinton—whose support was more implied than overt—and the noble Lord, Lord German, whose support was overt, I began to think the only group that is of similar value to this one are the players that Liverpool signed in the transfer window. I thought, “I cannot possibly lose this argument”, until my noble friend explained operational benefit. I do not know if I should be pleased about the noble Lord, Lord German, reminding him of the possibility of “operational benefit”, but he found it—I will come back to that in a moment.

I heard nine Conservative speeches. I was astonished that, until the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not one defended it—not one—and I think at least one of them may well have been responsible for the drafting of the legislation that Section 59 was in. I was therefore surprised when the noble Lord found that there was a pretty straightforward principle for Section 59, which is not that much different in its outcome to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hanson. However, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—and I will spend some time expanding this argument—if one looks at Clause 38 of the Bill, Section 59 is going to be pretty much alone as something that was in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It is going to find itself in a very lonely context. The noble Lord’s argument was that one had to see this in context, but that will disappear if this Bill is passed. I will spend some more time between now and Report looking at just what that means for the ambitions that people have for Section 59 as it is presently drafted.

Some of the most important points that were made in this debate are well worth repeating. I do not intend to repeat very many of them because it has been a very wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of repetition. It is important to start as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, encourages us to do, not only in debates but in conversations: to remember that it is people’s lived experience that should decide whether they deserve asylum or human rights protection, not conclusions that Governments or officials have come to about the temporary safety of the environments in which they may be living. This is all about people, and if we start from there and take into account all the other complexities of this legislation, we get to a point where there should be no room for Section 59 in the legislation going forward. There may need to be something similar to provide a benefit to the management of an issue of this scale, but it will not be that particular section in my view. This is a matter that I will come to again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the Question that Clauses 38 and 39 stand part of the Bill. It is a curious feature of this Bill that, on the one hand, it purports to take tougher action on illegal migration, yet at the same time it repeals the very Act of Parliament which would tackle that illegal migration in the most robust and effective way.

The Illegal Migration Act was introduced in the other place on 7 March 2023, in response to the crisis along the shorelines of the south-east and in the channel. It was aimed at stopping the boats, defending our borders and preventing those who enter the United Kingdom illegally from being able to remain. As my right honourable friend Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary at the time, said when moving the Second Reading in the other place:

“The British public know that border security is national security, and that illegal migration makes us all less safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 573.]


At the time, the Labour Party did not agree with that sentiment as it consistently opposed all efforts to stop the boats under the previous Government. It was welcome that the current Government began to acknowledge the necessity of stopping the boats, but it is clear from this clause that they have not yet fully appreciated what must be done. If they had, then they would not be pursuing this course of action.

Central to all of this is that this is what the British people want. They want to stop illegal migration, people making the journey across the channel in small boats and people dying in the channel. The way we do that is by having a credible deterrent to end the demand. That deterrent needs to contain both the ability to remove everyone that enters the United Kingdom illegally and a removals policy involving a safe third country.

The Government have spent much time trying to tear down the sensible policies of the previous Government, both the safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the same time, they have announced that they want to follow the Italian approach and pursue third-country removal centres—or, as the Prime Minister calls them, return hubs. In a visit to Albania in May, the Prime Minister said:

“What now we want to do and are having discussions of, talks of, is return hubs, which is where someone has been through the system in the UK, they need to be returned and we have to make sure they’re returned effectively, and we’ll do that, if we can, through return hubs”.


However, we know that Albania does not want to work with this Government in establishing return hubs. The Government have also spent much of the last few months talking up the one-in, one-out returns deal with France, but, as we all know, this returns deal is not much more than smoke and mirrors. It is very clear that EU countries do not want to take third country returns. It is also clear that the only country willing to take third country returns is in fact Rwanda. That is why we pursued the Rwanda policy and why we passed the Illegal Migration Act.

The effect of repealing the Illegal Migration Act and scrapping the Rwanda deterrent is that people who arrive in Calais know that all they have to do is make their way into British territorial waters and they will most likely be able to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if they are not successful in their asylum claim, they may very well be able to remain in the UK because we cannot return them for one reason or another.

The measures in the Illegal Migration Act placed a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove illegal entrants, thereby sending a strong and unambiguous message to those who would seek to flout our laws and abuse our immigration system. This Act, taken in tandem with the Rwanda scheme, if allowed fully to operate, could have acted as a suitable deterrent. By repealing this Act almost in its entirety, the Government now lack the ability swiftly to remove illegal migrants and will not be able to deter further crossings. This is highly disappointing. It betrays the simple fact that this Government are not truly serious about stopping illegal migration and defending our borders. I beg to move.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing the clause stand part notice. At the outset, I place on record for the House that 35,052 people were returned from 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025, the first year of this Government. Of those returns, 9,115 were enforced returns of people with no legal right to remain in the UK, a 24% increase over the period of the previous year.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of the total returns, 5,179 enforced and voluntary returns were of—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In a moment. I will always give way, if the noble Lord will let me finish the sentence. Of the total returns, 5,179 were of foreign national offenders, an increase of 14% over the same period in the 12 months prior. Therefore, before the noble Lord puts the premise that we cannot remove people and that this Government are not trying to, those figures put the record straight.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of the 9,000 that he refers to, how many came across on a small boat?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There were a number. I have not got the figure to hand.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is the low-hanging fruit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the 9,115 were low-hanging fruit, why was this figure 24% higher than the previous year, when—let me just remind myself —who was the Minister in charge of this system? Would it be, by any chance, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Because of the provision we brought in.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Right. I think we will just settle at that: that it is 24% higher than in the previous year because of the actions this Government have taken. That is the context in which Amendments 105 and 109 seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing. Therefore, it will not come as a surprise to him to know that we are not going to accept his clause stand part notice today.

Having a duty to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement this part of the INA. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge, of acting unreasonably in individual cases. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people to when their own country is not safe for them.

We have taken a judgment on the Rwanda scheme for that effect, where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and where a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK.

We already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK and have in fact, as I have just mentioned, seen an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum seekers being removed since the election of July last year, along with a 14% increase in foreign national offenders being removed. The Government’s aim is to deliver long-term credible policies to ensure a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim. We are repealing the legislation that the noble Lord brought in; he is trying to reinsert it. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the stand part notice.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question of fact? There are so many different statistics flying around that I think it would assist the House. Could he advise the House of the ratio of people who, having arrived by small boat, are then successfully deported or removed from the country? I would be very grateful if the noble Lord gave us a figure.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given the House accurate figures which show the removals. I cannot give the noble Viscount the figure he asked for immediately in this discussion, but I will reflect upon that question for him, on the ratio of individuals and where they have come from. However, around 35% of asylum claims are rejected. We are trying to speed up the asylum claims system to ensure that we come to decisions earlier and can therefore remove people with no right to be here. I will certainly examine the noble Viscount’s question, and if he is not happy with the response I eventually give him, there are opportunities further downstream for us to debate that further.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have listened to so much claptrap from this side of the Chamber, I cannot bear it any more. Could we please stop the right-wing nonsense you are all spouting? Could we perhaps hear just how many people who arrive by small boat are actually given asylum because they have a justified claim?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness the definitive figure on small boat arrival asylum claims, but roughly 61% to 65% of asylum claims are accepted, and roughly 35% are not. I can reflect on the exact figures, but those are the rough figures. From the Government’s perspective, we then have to speed up the asylum claims so we can make those assessments much more speedily. Part of the reason for the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is that those asylum applications were not speedily assessed. Therefore, people have been left in limbo in asylum hotels.

Those numbers have grown exponentially during the period 2015 to 2024. There was a dip just before the election, which I acknowledge, but further energy needs to be put into that to close the hotels—which we intend to do—and to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum. There are separate issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, such as ECHR obligations, refugee convention obligations, et cetera. But the Government simply believe that we need to speed up those asylum claims, and the measures in the Bill and externally from executive action and the immigration White Paper, along with future proposals, are designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his clause stand part notice.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. At this point, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I pay tribute to him for the sterling work he did as a Home Office Minister in steering the Illegal Migration Act through this House, and I thank him for his continued, erudite defence of this Act.

The Government have some serious explaining to do to justify how they think they will have a credible system to protect our borders and prevent illegal migration. If they cannot act swiftly and decisively to remove those who illegally enter this country and process their claims offshore, there is no deterrent. Without a deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the boats, and if the Government cannot stop the boats, then I believe this Bill will fail.

I assure the House that we will be returning to this matter in due course, but for now, I will not oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the stand part notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, they sent an email. The noble Lord, Lord German, is right to point out, from a sedentary position, that it was perhaps not done through the most courteous of routes. However, the point is that those nine countries—Poland was another—are not illiberal countries and they are not led by people who have a hatred of European institutions. They were arguing that the time has come for international action to be taken by countries, collectively, to re-examine the things that we are signed up to, to see whether they are fit for the present time.

I want to say one other thing to those who have tabled these amendments. We have heard a lot about the Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the heart of that was the suggestion that that would be a deterrent and a safe place to which we would send people. Recently, I have been looking again at Rwanda to see what the situation there is at the moment. In its human rights assessment of Rwanda just a few weeks ago, the US Department of State said that Rwanda is raising

“arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by government-supported armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor”.

I am talking about Rwanda, and that is the US Department of State’s finding within the last few weeks. Recently, Human Rights Watch made a submission to the universal periodic review and reported on the use of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees from 2019 to 2024. I might add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on transnational repression—which is with the Minister at the present time, and I look forward to his response to that—identified Rwanda as one of the countries responsible for transnational repression. I point the Minister to those details.

Last but not least, we cannot forget about the involvement of Rwanda in atrocity crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with M23 raging on across eastern DRC. Earlier this year, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability that I chaired published a report on CRSV in the DRC and the abuses perpetrated by that group.

Let us be careful what we wish for. Let us understand the nature of those countries that we are going to send people to and that we say are safe places where people will be able to have good, prosperous and decent lives. Let us be realistic and honest about the nature of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us that we will get to Amendment 110 from the Official Opposition, which is about lists and, indeed, we can then talk more about the countries that are on that list. Rwanda is on that list that the Official Opposition are pointing us towards.

I just want Members of the House to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said: we should stop blaming one another and trying to score political points and realise that this issue is now being exploited by people who have no great love of democracy and the rule of law and are taking people on to the streets and capitalising on this crisis. If we do not find solutions to this, I fear for the stability of our communities and the dangers to law and order and to the very vulnerable people whom I think all of us in this House are trying to protect.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I know that the Government vigorously opposed the Rwanda Bill, and indeed the Prime Minister described it as a gimmick, or words to that effect. I understand that that is the Government’s position, and I do not expect them to change their mind. But the point worth making is that, although the Rwanda scheme as a whole may not have found favour with the Government, it does not follow that some of the provisions in that Act are not appropriate to whatever policy the Government ultimately may think is appropriate. I know that this is something of a moving picture, as the Minister acknowledged.

I will not repeat what I said in the wrong group in relation to Amendment 107, but I place particular emphasis on that amendment because that issue was a pretty obvious excess of jurisdiction on the part of the European Court of Human Rights. This Government, whatever the final form their policy takes in statutory terms, may find that they have an interim ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that offends natural justice. The fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, quite rightly said—it needs a Minister before a decision is taken to reject it is an important safeguard. It is not a question of casting it aside and ignoring it; it is considered at an appropriate level, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the interim order that the court made under Rule 39. It is important that that provision should be inserted, whatever form the policy takes.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the amendment. As I have said previously, the Government are trying to ensure that we have a properly functioning immigration system. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 included provisions that, in my view, prevented asylum decision-making, increased the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to the taxpayer, which we have discussed on other groups.

The Act has largely not been commenced, and it is this Government’s policy—I confirm this to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—that we will not commence the Act, as we have accordingly stated in our manifesto and elsewhere. Therefore, Clause 38 repeals the majority of the measures contained in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including Section 2 on the duty to remove and associated provisions. However, it is not a blanket approach to repealing the Act. The six measures that the Government intend to retain include provisions that are in force and that have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. The Government see all these powers as important tools to allow for the proper operation of the immigration system and to achieve our wider priorities, along with the other measures that we brought forward.

Amendment 106 seeks to retain Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act. I believe this measure to be unnecessary. The new clause would, for example, preserve the power to remove unaccompanied children under 18 in specific circumstances when the duty to remove applies.

Section 55, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to and which Amendment 107 seeks to retain, would provide for a Minister of the Crown to disregard an interim measure of the European Court of Human Rights where the duty to remove applies. I have heard what the noble Lord said. We have made a judgment that we do not need that provision, and therefore this is part of our proposals on the repeal of the Act.

Section 5 of the Illegal Migration Act, which Amendment 108 seeks to retain, would have meant that an asylum claim and/or human rights claim would be declared inadmissible and would not have been substantively considered in the UK where the person had entered or arrived illegally and had not come directly from a country in which their life or liberty were threatened. It would also have meant that an asylum claim and/or human rights claim would have been declared inadmissible if the person was from a country of origin considered generally safe.

Section 9 of the Illegal Migration Act, which Amendment 111 seeks to retain, would ensure that individuals whose claims are disregarded as a result of being subject to the duty to remove and disregard of certain claims provisions—these are a result of amendments we have considered earlier, such as Amendment 105, and now Amendments 108 and 109—are entitled to support only under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This would align their entitlement to support to others declared inadmissible under Sections 80A or 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, akin to that of failed asylum seekers. This clause is also unnecessary.

The sections included in this group of amendments were designed to operate alongside Section 2 of the IMA Act, which imposed the duty to remove. As we are now repealing Section 2, this group of amendments has no legal or practical effect. Leaving them in place would simply create confusion. Repealing these sections is a necessary step to ensure the law reflects the Government’s policy direction and avoids ambiguity. Again, I appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkes, and the Front Bench, but, on the basis of the comments I have made, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, should the Official Opposition bring this back on Report, this will be remedied. If the courts here say that these are special reasons why somebody might face a particular problem in their life, I would find it astonishing if we ignored them and sent people back, particularly when we know there are problems in some of the countries on the list in Amendment 120.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his introduction to Amendments 120 and 110, which respectively seek to retain the Schedule 1 list of countries to which a person subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act could be removed, and the power to amend that list of countries. If noble Lords examine the amendment in detail, they will see that it is reliant on Amendment 105, which we discussed in a previous group and which seeks to retain the duty to remove from the IMA, and a number of other amendments that we have already debated that hinge on these attempts to reinstate the IMA. In a sense, without Amendment 105, which has been withdrawn by the noble Lord, this cannot be implemented. Of course, we have had the debate and I will still answer the points raised.

The Bill does not take a blanket approach to the repeal of the IMA, and the Government intend to retain provisions that have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. However, these amendments do not do that—particularly now that Amendment 105 has been withdrawn. They would have no effect without retention of the duty to remove and associated provisions. Those provisions were introduced for the purposes of the previous Government’s failed Rwanda scheme and, as we have said in the manifesto and beyond, we intend to remove the Rwanda scheme as a whole.

I note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton; they made extremely valid points about the country list and the mechanism for that list. It backs up the provisions that we have mentioned from the Government’s perspective as to why we are not going to progress Amendments 120 and 110. Self-evidently, the previous Government tried and failed to implement those provisions, so even without Amendment 105 it is quite challenging for us to agree to pick up the torch and carry on when the previous Government could not do that themselves. Those policies also brought the system to a standstill. There were thousands of asylum claims put on hold, an increase in the backlog, incredible pressure on the asylum accommodation system and significant cost to the taxpayer. Those are some of the challenges that, even now, the 13 month-old Government are trying to pick up.

Therefore, I cannot support the amendments that seek to reintroduce those measures from the IMA. Through Clause 38, which we have considered already, this Government seek to repeal the majority of the measures contained in the IMA, including the provisions that these amendments seek to retain.

It is also worth noting that this list is, in effect, more restrictive as to where we could remove an individual who has come to the UK unlawfully under well-established powers to remove that we already have in place. Under existing inadmissibility provisions, an asylum claim may be treated as inadmissible if the claimant has previously been present in, or has a connection to, a safe third country where it is considered reasonable to expect them to have sought protection. Under existing powers, we can remove people to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe a person will be admitted.

Therefore, for the reasons given in relation to Amendment 105 and with a strong—I hope—listening message to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I invite the noble Lord not to press these amendments.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

Before the Minister sits down, I understand exactly what he said about the list, but how does a tribunal determine in an individual case whether a country is safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have said to the Committee previously that that has to be examined on an individual basis. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given, where a country may be safe but a small region of that country or a protected characteristic of the individual may not be, are judgments that are made based on the evidence put before a tribunal. We will of course examine those issues in detail, but the blanket approach we have here is not appropriate.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I am sorry to pursue the point, but it seems to be quite important. Therefore, does an individual court have to make an assessment without any guidance from Parliament as to whether, for that individual, with their particular characteristics, a particular country is safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Subsection (3) states that the description can include

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

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

In conclusion—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

There was discussion about consent, because a child cannot consent. I do not know whether the noble Lord recalls it, but we talked about that fairly extensively.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful—again—for the amendments which have elicited this discussion. I want to put a central premise before the Committee: that age assessments, as has been proved by the contributions of noble Lords today, are a difficult area and no single or combination assessment technique is able to determine age with precision. But as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, there are serious safeguarding issues if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding risks in treating children as adults. We have to try to improve the performance on age assessment and get it right. The Government treat this issue with real seriousness and with the importance it demands, and we will continue to explore with partners how we can improve the robustness of age-assessment processes by increasing the reliability of the methods used.

That leads me to the amendments before the Committee today. Amendment 114 seeks to incorporate Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is subject to repeal, into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The fact that we are already repealing that means that we are revisiting again, as we are on a number of amendments, things that the Government are seeking to repeal. The provision—the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, referred to this—concerns decisions relating to a person’s age and would bring into effect measures to disapply the statutory rights of appeal in the Nationality and Borders Act, which, if commenced, enable a person to bring an appeal challenging a decision on their age. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the difficulties of that. The provision applies only to individuals subject to the Section 2 duty to remove in the IMA, which itself is under repeal in the Bill.

I know what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr has said, and I feel that I am going around in a number of circles, but the impact is the same. We are repealing these sections; the official Opposition are trying to put them back in. We cannot put them back in because we are repealing these sections. At the end of the day we are still trying to improve the performance on age assessment for the public and the immigration system. We are committed to focusing on delivering long-term, credible policies and will try to ensure that we do that by retaining only measures of the IMA which we have assessed as offering operational benefit. As I have said, we are repealing most of the measures, including Section 2, the duty to remove. Therefore, Sections 57 and 58, relating to age assessments, which this amendment seeks to reinstate, are both unworkable and indeed irrelevant without the duty to remove. The circular movement continues.

There are robust processes in place to verify and assess an individual’s age where there is doubt. It is important that we do so, and I again emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that these are important matters to get right. Where an individual claims to be a child without any credible documentary evidence and where there is reason to doubt the claimed age, immigration officers will currently conduct an initial decision on age to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or an adult. Where doubt remains following the initial decision, which occasionally it does, individuals will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age, in the form of the acknowledged Merton-compliant age assessment.

The Government are committed to improving age-assessment practices to enable all individuals to be safeguarded and treated appropriately, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Murray has mentioned. We have retained—as again the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has referred to—the National Age Assessment Board, which was launched on 31 March 2023 by the previous Government. It is now being rolled out nationally, continues to offer significant improvements, and has the support now of over 55 expert social workers whose task it is to support local authorities by conducting comprehensive age assessments, increasing capacity, and putting expertise in the system. Since its launch, 77 local authorities have signed up to the work of the NAAB. Greater consistency in age-assessment practice is now the case; improved quality of decision-making is there. Well over 1,137 individuals, predominantly social workers from local councils, are responsible for conducting age assessments, and the training has received positive feedback from local authorities.

Those are all positive things, and I again pay tribute to the hands that laid on those regulations and efforts previously. It is all very good, positive stuff. The Home Office, with the support of the Department for Education, has also commissioned user research into age assessment processes, with participation from Home Office members of staff, non-governmental organisations, local councils, accommodation providers and others. It has already started to implement positive change following the research that we have undertaken, and we are currently reviewing initial decisions on age training that have been received by Home Office staff at, for example, the Western Jet Foil premises in Kent.

Amendment 203H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others have said, restrict the jurisdiction of the court to determine applications for judicial review brought against a decision on age made by the National Age Assessment Board on conventional public law grounds such as rationality, reasonableness and procedural fairness. The court would be unable to grant relief because it considers that the board’s decision on a claimant’s age is wrong as a matter of fact. It would also prevent the court from substituting its own decision on age. This is an important point, as it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court which held that the court is required to determine for itself the age of the claimant as an issue of fact.

In addition, this amendment would result in a court treating challenges brought against decisions on age made by the board differently from challenges brought against decisions on age made by a local authority.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his thoughts on that. That is the whole point. The thrust of my submission was that the Supreme Court got the law wrong in that instance. The creation of the National Age Assessment Board as an expert body means that the situation is different from that which pertained when the Supreme Court made that earlier decision. That is why the Home Office should trust its own expert social workers and grasp this opportunity to accelerate the pace and change the test that the court is using.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think we are going to have an honest disagreement on this amendment. I am grateful for the thought that the noble Lord has put into this, but I again put it to him that the amendment would result in a court treating challenges brought against decisions on age made by the board differently from challenges brought against decisions on age made by a local authority. We are going to have to part company on that, for the moment at least.

Amendments 115 and 200, tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, concern scientific methods of age assessment. Repealing Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill seeks to do, will not affect the provisions related to scientific methods of age assessment set out in the NABA and the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2024, such as the power to use X-rays and MRI scans and to take a negative inference on the credibility of a person who refuses consent where there are no reasonable grounds to do so.

Amendment 200 looks to have the Secretary of State lay regulations under Section 52 within six months. Regulations have already been made under this power. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section 58 of the IMA. Again, the Bill will repeal that section, although Amendment 115 would reintroduce it as a clause in this Bill. We are going round again in the circle of life on the amendments to this Bill.

In any case, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that these amendments seek to achieve unless and until satisfied that the scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods do not currently meet this threshold. Again, we can have a debate about the ECHR, but that is where the Government currently are.

The Government will continue to explore the latest developments in things such as artificial intelligence and age assessment technologies to ensure that we have the most accurate information available. Facial age estimation is promising and potentially cost effective, allowing early assessments, and it could produce useful results far more quickly than potential methods of scientific age assessments such as the bone X-rays mentioned by noble Lords and MRI scans. It requires only a facial image, and we will look at how that develops.

Again, the IMA was part of the previous Government’s initiative. We are repealing the IMA but will not compromise on border security. We remain fully focused on long-term credible policies. For that reason, I invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Cameron and Lord Murray, not to push these amendments at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Is there a plan to publish this in annual form at some point in the future? We need that data.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have heard what the noble Baroness said. I will reflect on that point. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Minister anticipated my point, and the noble Baroness put it much more clearly. I was going to ask whether there would be periodic production of qualitative and quantitative data around the numbers coming in. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, we are debating in the dark on numbers—we need the numbers. But the Minister answered the question, for which I thank him.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for our agreement on the answering of the question and I retain my position. I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords. That was an informative if not intriguing debate, and I shall be brief in closing our discussion on this group. I return to the central principle that has underpinned all my remarks: our immigration system must be balanced. It must allow for proper dialogue, proper challenge and proper safeguards, but it must also be able to function effectively. The system serves a vital purpose: it protects our borders, it maintains public confidence in our Government’s ability to protect us and it upholds the rule of law. If we allow it to become paralysed by delays, backlogs and spurious challenges, it fails not only in its legal duties but in its duty to the British people.

We on this side of the House are rightly concerned that removing these clauses will jeopardise that balance and that, without them, the Government’s ability to take timely authoritative decisions and to act on them will be weakened—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not want to break the noble Lord’s chain of thought, but information has just been supplied to me that we now have on the government website the number of age disputes raised, the number of age disputes resolved, the number of adults found to be children, et cetera. That information is available now on GOV.UK, and I will supply further details to the noble Baroness in due course.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government should either reintroduce these provisions or make it clear to this House here and now how they intend to prevent the harm that their removal will cause. Without such assurances, we cannot be confident that our borders will be secure, that our processes will be respected or that the British public can have faith in the system that serves it. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. As I said at the beginning, it would be very helpful to have it in writing so that, as he rightly says, we can reflect on it in the greater time we will have available to us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have before me in my notes a full encyclopaedia of responses to the many points the noble Lord made, and I am very happy to go through them. However, it may be more sensible—given the hour and the fact that the noble Lord will not, I suspect, be pushing these amendments to a Division this evening—if I reflect on what he said in Hansard and respond to those points with clarity, using this document. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library, so that other Members can see the detail. In my view, this would speed up the response and give some clarity to the noble Lord, so he can reflect on whether he wishes to return to these matters on Report. If that is satisfactory, it would seem to be a useful way of progressing.

With that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, pending any discussion and response to the letter I will send him.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what we were hoping for from this amendment: to understand the Government’s intention in these various areas. I am grateful for his response, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree to a degree with the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We may not agree on everything, but we are, in this small way, united. I shall speak briefly on the other amendments in this group, before turning to those in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron.

On Amendment 119, it is right that asylum casework should be completed as quickly as possible. Delays are costly to the taxpayer and to public confidence in the asylum system. When cases drag on for extended periods, it not only increases the financial burden but undermines the perception that our system is effective, fair and controlled.

However, while I support the principle behind the amendment, I have concerns about the rigidity of imposing a legal service standard. What happens when the limit is breached? Would this create a new legal avenue for challenge, further delaying removals and adding yet more strain to the system? The real solution lies not only in faster processing but in reducing the pressures in the first place. While I support the intention behind the proposal, I believe that our priority must remain on addressing the root causes of the pressure and not just on setting ambitious targets that may ultimately prove counterproductive.

We also have some sympathy for Amendment 195. It concerns a matter that this side has raised in relation to other Bills currently going through the House, such as the fraud, error and recovery Bill. When decisions are being taken that greatly affect the life of another person, we need to have some guarantee of human involvement. I therefore welcome this as an opportunity for the Minister to set out how AI will be used in this process.

I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend. Amendment 201 would compel the Government to produce a report into the cost of providing asylum support. The British people engage with the principle of asylum in good will; they want to see those who are genuinely in need of protection given the support they require. That is a national characteristic of which I am proud. However, part of maintaining that good will is being open and honest about the costs involved. We have all seen what happens when there are information gaps: mistrust grows, narratives fill the space and confidence in the system is undermined; the Government then lose control, and it does not matter what they have done or delivered as it all becomes noise in a vacuum. Our amendment therefore seeks to address that by ensuring that the Government provide a comprehensive report on the cost of providing asylum support. Transparency should not be something that the Government resist; it is a hallmark of good governance.

Finally, Amendment 202 would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of proposals for the establishment of third-country removal centres. We, on this side of the Committee, have been clear that we are facing a massive, escalating and serious problem with illegal entry into the United Kingdom. If Ministers are serious about ending the crisis in the channel, they must be willing to consider the full range of options, and this review will be a vital step towards that.

Taken together, our two amendments are about realism, transparency and ambition: realism in recognising that our current approach is not working; transparency in being honest with the British people about the costs and consequences of our policies; and ambition in being prepared to consider tougher, more effective measures that match the scale of the challenge we face. The public’s patience is wearing thin and their confidence in the system will not be restored by half-measures. These proposals would give the Government the tools, evidence and mandate to act decisively.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Front Benches for their amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled an amendment to introduce a new service standard. I want to thank them for the amendment, as it helpful to look at that. We absolutely agree that there needs to be a properly functioning, effective immigration system. Our asylum processes should be not just efficient but robust. We are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. We want to ensure that protection is granted as soon as possible so that people can start to integrate and rebuild their lives, including by obtaining employment when they have the right to do so. As such, I want to provide reassurance of the important steps we are already taking to achieve this aim.

As I have said on a number of occasions, during the passage of the Bill as well as in Questions and Statements, we have inherited a very large backlog, which we are trying to clear at pace. We are delivering the removals of people with no right to be in the UK, and we want to ensure that we restore the system very quickly. By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals. We have taken steps to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system. We have put in resources to ensure that we can do that at pace. That is why we are also looking at the efficiency of appeals and decisions, which we see to be of paramount importance.

The Bill proposes setting up a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks for the First-tier Tribunal to dispose of supported asylum appeals and appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders. The measures aim to speed up the appeal decisions, to ensure that we increase tribunal capacity and have a timely consideration of appeals. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agree with me that the work that we are conducting at pace is appropriate and is having a real impact now on the size of the backlog. Although we cannot discuss the three-month time scale proposed in the amendment, I can reassure them that it is certainly on our agenda.

Amendment 195 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looks particularly at generative AI tools to support caseworkers. I want to emphasise that no immigration decision is made solely by automatic decision-making, for there is still always a human eye on the decision-making. It is important that case summarisation and policy search tools, both of which are designed to help decision-makers, mean that we have improvements and efficiency in that process, which is also helping to reduce the backlog, which we want.

We have had an evaluation of the tools to date. We published that on GOV.UK in May. Therefore, we can demonstrate that the new technologies, such as AI, can potentially save around an hour per case, which is allowing decision-makers to access information more easily and to streamline the asylum process without, I hope, compromising the quality of the decisions.

Ethics and data protection are at the forefront of the considerations—the noble Baroness has mentioned that. The Home Office is taking significant steps to ensure that, where we trial and adopt AI in decision-making, we do so responsibly and in a way that maintains public confidence and that any tools are being trialled and are used to assist Home Office staff. With those assurances, I hope that she will not press her amendment.

The noble Baroness also mentioned other issues, which I will return to in a moment.

Amendment 201 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, addresses ensuring transparency in the asylum system. I hope he will understand that we think the amendment is unnecessary, not because it is not right that he presses us on this, but because, as we have discussed throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, the cost of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers has grown significantly. I have put those proposals before the House as a whole. This is a due in large part to the strain we have had on the asylum system in recent years, including the number of unprocessed claims and a record number of arrivals via small boats. We are taking steps to reduce the cost and ensure public funds are managed responsibly.

I understand the intention behind this amendment; it aims to enhance transparency and provide Parliament with a clear picture of how asylum support is being delivered. But I note that the information that the noble Lord is requesting is published each year in the Home Office’s annual accounts. The figures are publicly available and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and we remain committed they are as clear and comprehensive as possible.

The amendment seeks a breakdown of the proportion of asylum seekers who have had their claims denied but are still receiving support. It may be helpful to note that failed asylum seekers can, under certain conditions, remain eligible for support, for example if they are taking steps to leave the UK or face temporary barriers. They are all important issues. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but that information is already available.

I will touch on this issue briefly, because I have the information on my phone, which will lose its signal and sign out if I do not look at it immediately. On the issue of rewards and bonuses for staff that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, there is a consistent delivery of high-quality work and professional behaviour. We want to ensure that asylum decisions are subject to stringent quality checks, with individual performance targets agreed with managers and reviewed regularly to ensure that the high standards expected are consistently met. I will give her more information about the bonus scheme—as far as I can—after the discussions today.

I should also say, in passing, that all claimants will receive a written transcript of any interview that has taken place, and they can also have an audio recording of that. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness about the issues she has put before me.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

They have been entitled to receive the transcript; the problem is that people are not told that they are entitled to have it, and I wonder whether the Minister can take that back. I will have to come back in writing on the details of the use of AI. With regard to performance standards and targets and so on, I asked about some details of the scheme. Can he come back to me in writing on that? What he read out, about keeping up standards and so on, I hope we would all take for granted as being exactly the basis on which the work is done, but the detail of the bonuses and so on—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that we can agree that we will examine Hansard tomorrow to determine the information required from each of us and provide it in the fullness of time.

On Amendment 202, I thank noble Lords for their interest in ensuring transparency in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. I think the amendment is unnecessary. On 15 May, the Prime Minister set out that we are actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable and what reduces the impact of migration on the British public. The hubs could facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers. It is not the Rwanda model; the return hub proposal is fundamentally different. It does not outsource asylum decision-making but targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts. Details of any agreements and associated policy would be made publicly available when the time is right. I hope that, at that stage, in the event of any schemes progressing, we could have some scrutiny and take decisions accordingly. I give him a commitment that we will publish such details in the event of any scheme progressing. In the light of those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say on the service standard that he would take that into consideration or look at the matter. I also heard him say that there is a standard already, upon which appeals would be completed. In a sense, that is what a service standard is: you are setting targets for what you want to happen. If that is the case and both those things are factually accurate—we can look at Hansard—then I think that starts to satisfy what we are looking at here. Obviously there will be some more questions on the detail, but it seems to me that it is therefore appropriate for me to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again, as ever, to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their amendments. I give them the general assurance that we are committed to ensuring that those seeking immigration advice and services can access a regulated and competent advice sector, and the clauses in the Bill as drafted will strengthen the availability of good-quality regulated immigration advice and therefore bolster access to justice. Therefore, we hope that the amendments will not be pressed either today or at a later stage, but I just want to explain why.

As she has just completed her comments, let me begin with Amendment 128 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is intended to probe whether access to justice will be impeded if fees are higher than the cost of the services provided under those fees. The amendment tabled would remove the ability of the Secretary of State—that is, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—and the commissioner to charge fees for a function that may exceed the cost of exercising that function, as well as removing the safeguards related to that ability. The noble Baroness may be aware that under the Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, the basic principle is that fees and charges should be set at a level to recover costs. The fees charged to advisers for applications for registration or continued registration with the commissioner are not currently at full cost recovery levels. Quite frankly, in the current economic climate, that position is no longer sustainable.

Changes to the charging power will reduce the burden on the taxpayer. As drafted, new subsections (3) and (4) will allow for an average of the cost of providing services across organisations to be charged, rather than attempting to make a calculation of the number of hours spent on providing services to one organisation versus another, which would not be feasible. This approach is in accordance with Treasury rules on managing public money. Different fee levels for different types of users should reflect differences in average costs for providing the services to those groups, and ensuring that fees are proportionate to organisation size will, I believe, help bolster access to justice. We may have some reflection on that, but that is the initial point I put to the noble Baroness on her amendment.

There are a number of amendments from His Majesty’s Opposition. I will deal first with Amendment 125 which, with consequential amendments, aims to alter the type of secondary instrument used to charge fees in respect of certain commissioner functions from an order to regulations. This would make regulations specifying the fees chargeable by the commissioner subject to the affirmative procedure under Section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The measure in this Bill replaces the current power to charge fees by order set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As the new charging power in the Bill is to be inserted into the 1999 Act, the use of an order as a relevant statutory instrument ensures drafting consistency between this Bill and current legislation. The negative procedure is considered appropriate to afford an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, and of course I remind all noble Lords that the negative procedure can be prayed against and there can be a debate accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Is the Minister saying that there is to be an exercise of averaging out the fees, so that we are talking about total cost and total fees, but they might not be absolutely exact for the particular function; however, taken overall, they will not exceed the total amount?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. We on this side of the House oppose Amendment 131 on the grounds that it undermines a key provision of the borders Bill and creates a two-tier system where some people are rightly subject to stricter conditions but others are not. The amendment would, in effect, disapply these provisions from individuals who ought to be subject to them. If these provisions are, as noble Lords rightly recognise, necessary to strengthen our ability to act, then surely they should apply equally to all relevant cases from the moment the Act comes into force.

We on this side also oppose Amendment 132, which would result in the release of people from detention possibly before any determination had been made on them and before we could be assured that it was safe and in the national interest to do so. This would result in the release of people when their identities remained unclear and we did not know why they were here or what threat they might pose to the country. We know of cases where people who arrived here illegally went on to plan and very nearly execute major terrorist attacks sponsored by hostile foreign states, as happened in May last year. It would be deeply irresponsible to allow such individuals to walk free while essential checks were still ongoing.

Amendment 140 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire, who I note is not present in his place, would require the Secretary of State to make a biannual report on the number of foreign criminals detained awaiting deportation under any authority broken down by nationality, and on the number of illegal entrants detained for any purpose under any authority broken down by nationality. This amendment would provide much-needed clarity on who was being detained and goes to the heart of a point that we on these Benches have raised consistently.

The British people have a right to know who is being detained and where they are from. If we are to foster good will towards those who genuinely need our help, this must be done in a framework of trust and openness between the Government and the public. For these reasons, while we welcome Amendment 140 for the clarity and transparency it brings, we cannot support the majority of the amendments in this group. They would weaken key provisions, create loopholes and make it harder for us to maintain the strength and integrity of our immigration and asylum system.

The challenge we face is significant and demands a robust response. No one will benefit in the long term if we fail to take control now. The British people will lose patience, trust will erode and good will towards migrants who genuinely need our help will diminish. Once that good will is lost, it cannot easily be recovered. We must bring the public with us, not alienate them, and that requires a system that is both strong and fair. These amendments do not achieve that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I find myself not in agreement, I am afraid, with the noble Lord, Lord German, so it is an interesting end to a long day of debate.

Immigration detention is an issue that I know noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of Clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. It is the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. Without the retrospective effect of this clause, individuals could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings.

Amendment 131 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove that retrospective effect. I do not believe that is a productive way forward because, as I mentioned, Clause 41 clarifies these powers. The Home Office already detains individuals at the first stage of deportation. Clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.

On Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, with support from other noble Lords, it is important to make clear the Government’s position that a statutory time limit on detention will not, in our view, be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK. The Government have been clear that we are committed to increasing removals of people who have no right to be here. That is what the public expect and, in that vein, I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

In the year ending March 2025, there were 8,600 enforced removals—a 22% increase on the previous year—and that would not be possible with a time limit on detention because it would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers. It is crucial that we have an immigration system that encourages compliance. Under a 28-day time limit, people who have no legal right to be in the UK—including, as the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, mentioned, some who potentially have committed serious crimes—would be automatically released after 28 days, regardless of whether they have actively obstructed removal efforts or pose a clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public, and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders, who may have committed serious criminal offences, would benefit from this amendment equally to anybody else.

Additionally, such a time limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate removal processes until they reach that 28-day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made that would potentially push people over the 28-day limit, and this would undermine effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk.

Amendment 133 requires that, after 96 hours of detention, a person may continue to be detained only if they have been refused bail by the First-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a scheduled bail hearing. This would again, in my view, place significant additional burdens on an already-stretched tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.

There are a number of safeguards in the detention process—I hope this will reassure the noble Lord—including access to the courts by judicial review; bail applications, which can be made at any point; and automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods. With these mechanisms in place, the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary.

I recognise and understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we have powers to detain people only for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose, either to examine a person on their arrival, to remove or to deport. We have a number of safeguards in place, and I assure noble Lords that, where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe, these safeguards ensure that people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I put that for him to consider today in order to withdraw the amendment, which we can return to later.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has tabled Amendment 140. Sadly, he has not managed to be here this evening, but when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day tomorrow morning, he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants. We also produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am obviously disappointed that the evidence produced by the inspectorate and many other bodies, including the House of Commons Justice Committee and our own committee on human rights, if not exactly thrown out of the window, has not necessarily received the full consideration we are speaking of. I hear what the Minister says, and I will reflect on that. I and the other supporters of this issue may well come back to it later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. This amendment pertains to legal aid for those detained persons. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid is already provided for those who bring asylum cases or other matters such as immigration bail, certain applications by victims of domestic abuse or trafficking, proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, asylum support applications and applications made by separated children. Put simply, this support is already clearly in place. It is our position that extensive provision is already made and at significant cost.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Ludford. I have also heard contributions from the Floor of the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, all of which were broadly in support of my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 137.

This amendment would impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours. I am going to repeat what noble Lords have said already, because it is important to put it on the record. People detained under immigration powers in prisons and in immigration removal centres are provided initially with 30 minutes of free legal aid advice through the detained duty advice scheme—DDAS. This is a triaged appointment which supports people to meet with a legal provider who may provide further advice, subject to the matter being within scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility. I want to be clear that there is this 30-minute availability, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is important to re-emphasise that, following that DDAS assessment, whether a legal representative accepts or takes on a case is subject to a merit test and to a decision about independent legal representation, in line with legal aid. There is already some scope for reassurance. I hope that the Committee can accept that this well-established service is in place to provide people with quick and easy access to legal provision.

I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Bach mentioned the take-up. I fully accept that this is an important matter for him, and for the Committee and the Government to consider. Take-up is monitored by officials from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It will be examined in detail. I am happy to look at how we can improve take-up of the initial provision, but the initial provision is there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but does he not agree that the very high percentage of these cases that reach an appellate level in which the litigants are not represented by lawyers is alarming evidence that if legal aid is available at an early stage, it is not having much effect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

So the Goschen/Empey number is neither here nor there. It is not a watertight compartment. The country can decide how much money to put into legal aid. There is also an offsetting benefit, which the Minister has been explaining, from speeding up the process, making sure that good decisions are taken and courts’ time is not wasted. So the Goschen question, to be honest, is irrelevant to this issue. My argument for economy is based on taking the two things together: the speed of the system, the cost of delays, unnecessary detentions and backlogs of asylum cases versus the undoubted additional cost of legal aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.

Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. While he is still on his feet—I love that device—and before my noble friend Lord Bach responds, I think I am hearing an understandable response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that at the moment none of us has a view of precise figures, but we could examine that, and maybe that should go into the mix of a future discussion on Report.

However, I have to agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not a zero-sum game between justice and efficiency. Indeed, I just wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees—I think he indicated that he does—with judges who have had to deal with cases of unrepresented people about how much time and energy that adds to hearings that, I believe, the Government actually want to speed up. In any calculation that the Minister comes back with on Report, I hope that officials will add that component for delay—an unrepresented person in an asylum case; that should go into the mix.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.

My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.

Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful. The noble Lord has been very generous with time on this important matter. I entirely understand his point that further factual information is required. Will he do his best to ensure that we do not wait until Report to receive that information, and that at least those who have spoken in this debate and the Library generally receive a written explanation of the factual position as seen by the department on the cost of implementing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the 30 minutes, and the take-up? Will he also commit to meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this matter, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so we can see whether there is a way forward prior to Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are valid and I will do my best to examine them. Some of these issues are within the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I will examine those points in detail and make sure that we respond to those who have spoken in the debate and potentially put a note in the Library of the House accordingly.

I want to re-emphasise that the Government strongly believe that there is a good offer at the moment. That offer is available to all who seek it, and there is the potential for further advice if the case merits it and for us to examine how we monitor take-up. I will certainly look at the points that have been raised, but in the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that in this very complicated and important Bill, this is the only amendment, and therefore the only discussion there has been, on the legal aid issue, so I do not apologise for the time this debate has taken. Everybody who has spoken, on all sides, has taken this issue seriously, as they ought to, because it is very serious, given the principles behind the rule of law. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord on the Front Bench repeat what I knew to be the case—that that side as well as this side, and all sides of this House, believe it important that the rule of law applies when non-nationals are detained, and that those people are as entitled as anyone else to have the benefit of legal advice. That is a big principle and the one behind this amendment, so I am glad it is accepted.

I am really grateful, in that no mover of an amendment could have enjoyed a more expert team of people speaking on behalf of the amendment—or, indeed, not on its behalf. Every contribution was important, not least of all that of my noble friend the Minister, who in his usual courteous way listened to the debate and answered it as well as it could be answered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.

Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.

Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.

For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.

Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.

I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The Minister has made very clear his approach to the amendments, but I want to press him a bit. The Government accept that in some cases the courts are not drawing the lines in the right place, which is why the Government have suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referenced, that they will issue further guidance to courts to make these decisions and draw the lines in a different place. Is guidance going to be sufficient to alter where judges make these decisions, or do we need to change the law? The Minister may not agree with these proposals, but I would argue that you do need to change the law. If he does not think that these proposals are okay but thinks that courts are not getting it right at the moment, the Government should bring forward their own amendments on Report. I suspect that this House will give them a fair hearing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises perfectly valid questions. I was clear to the House and have been today to the Committee that the Government will examine the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 requirements. We will be issuing guidance on that and have some further discussion on what that means in practice. We are still considering those matters, but we not minded at the moment to bring forward legislation—and I am certainly not minded to support, for the reasons that I have said, the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that I have been clear on that.

We are committed to reforms across the immigration system. It is right that we take action against foreign national offenders in the UK before they get the opportunity to put routes down in the UK. We will do what we can to protect local communities and prevent crime. We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate.

Later this year, as the noble Lord is intimating, we will set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. We will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. We need to strike that balance between family rights and the wider public interest. That is why we will clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will also set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to amend the penalty for immigration offences in Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, replacing this with a sentence of deportation and removing the lack of knowledge as a defence against these offences. We have been clear in our response to the sentencing review that we will reduce the use of short sentences and increase the use of suspended sentences, so there will be a significant reduction in the number of such offenders being sent to prison. Foreign nationals convicted of immigration offences can be considered for deportation at present, and we will act to ensure that such action is taken in future.

Removing lack of knowledge as a defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more ECHR challenges, resulting in delay, the consequence being fewer successful removals.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

To pick up on a point made by the Minister, he confirmed that the Government are undertaking this review of Article 8 and how it is interpreted by the courts. He also said that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward legal provisions to put reforms in place. We have a bit of time before Report, with another day in Committee in October and Report a little bit after that. Can I urge the Minister to speed up that review? If it is necessary to put into statute any changes in how Article 8 is being interpreted, he can then bring that forward in this legislation, to take advantage of bringing those reforms in urgently, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation to come down the track in a year or two.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We keep all matters under review. This will go at the pace that it goes at. We will be making further announcements in due course on how we will review Article 8 and the issues that will result accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and for taking time to meet me and my colleagues to discuss these matters, as he referred to. I am grateful for his clarification regarding Amendments 143 and 145, which will give welcome reassurance.

I am not entirely convinced that the response he has given to Amendment 144 addresses all the concerns that we have raised, although I will certainly study Hansard carefully in case I have missed some of those issues. While it is true that someone whose status expires because the Home Office has determined that it was granted in error has a right to subsequently apply again, and if that is refused then they can appeal, that is not an appeal against the decision that the original status was granted in error, so that remains a cause for concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is particularly in cases where the Home Office has made an error that we want all the safeguards to exist.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We will look at it and decide how to proceed from here. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree with everything that the noble Lord said, although I slightly dissent from his description of his discussions with his civil servants. I used to be a civil servant and I thought that the main job of civil servants was to stop Ministers doing things they should not do or did not have the powers to do. Otherwise, however, I entirely agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a powerful case. To me, this is a very strange clause. We have to listen to what our Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I followed what the Minister said in the Commons, which was that the power conferred on Ministers would be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism—I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—or serious crime, or when a person poses a threat to national security or public safety and, presumably, cannot be deported. If the clause said all that, limiting and ring-fencing the powers of the Minister, I could understand the rationale for it and might even support it. However, with no ring-fencing, it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said—a sledgehammer. The absence of any judicial oversight provision is wrong. It is dangerous to give Ministers the power to add such other conditions as they think fit. This is just too broad and, if it is to be there at all, it needs to be limited. If the Government’s intentions are as Angela Eagle said in the other place, let that be spelled out in the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful as ever for the discussion around Clause 43 and for the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I will start by setting out the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 43. There will be an opportunity, as has been discussed, to follow the course of action suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope, to delete the clause. There is also the possibility on Report to look at strengthening the clause by some amendments that could be brought forward on judicial oversight. However, I want to put on record where the Government believe they are at the moment.

Noble Lords will know Clause 43 will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat but currently cannot be removed or deported because of our obligations under domestic or international law. It will also make absolutely clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained—for example, they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings—they may be placed on immigration bail. Those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews, which are imposed in accordance with our ECHR obligations.

A person who does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention, but who cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, may fall to be granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation currently prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subject to while on immigration bail. The Government believe that this is perverse. I hope that I can give the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Deben, the assurance that the decisions to impose these conditions will only be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to appropriately address the specific risks that a person is assessed to pose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He has really said just one thing, which is not in dispute across the House: he and his colleagues would use these powers on a case-by-case basis and in a very responsible way. However, with great respect, he has not answered either of the two points that were made to him in the debate. The first was the question of why serious crime prevention orders, TPIMS or prevention and investigation measures under the National Security Act 2023 would not be sufficient to deal with all the categories of people that Angela Eagle referred to. That is the question of whether Clause 43 is necessary at all.

Secondly—assuming he makes that case—how can he justify a power that is designed for such a narrow purpose being drafted in such an impossibly broad fashion? Although the Minister says, quite rightly, that we can put this to a Division on Report, I remind him that the TPIM Act, with all the safeguards that it contains, is 59 pages long. Drafting thresholds, proper provisions for scope, and safeguards is not a simple matter—not for a humble and unlettered Back-Bencher or Cross-Bencher such as myself.

I remember a similar case with the deprivation of citizenship, in which, under the last Government, a clause was put forward that allowed anyone who was subject to deprivation to be deprived of their citizenship without notice. It was seen that this was far broader than it needed be and the Government met with me and others and assisted with the drafting. We ended up with something much more tailored to the policy that the Government were seeking to advance, which nobody has questioned in this debate. Will the Minister meet with us in a constructive spirit and with a view to finding a clause that meets the Government’s policy but is not open to the sort of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have referred?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, knows from our 13 months or so of engagement with him that I am always open to meet with noble Lord and to have input into the legislative process to make sure that the Government’s objectives are workable and practicable. I will happily meet with him to reflect on those points. I have Members from the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches pressing me on this issue; it is important that I listen to those reflections with the policy Minister who has argued that case in the House of Commons.

Let us look at what has been said today in the cold light of day and reflect upon it. I will certainly arrange a meeting to hear his concerns further and look at the issues. The Government believe that Clause 43 is of sound policy and that it would be used in the limited circumstances that I have described. They believe that those circumstances can be defined and, even though new sub-paragraph (x) in Clause 43(2)(b) says

“other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”,

I understand his concern on that matter. But I believe, again, that a responsible Secretary of State would be held to account, would have to explain and bring forward information on that, and would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the House of Commons where votes from the governing party can take place, but also in this noble House.

So I say to the noble Lord: let us meet, but the Government have put forward a clause that they believe is appropriate. There are noble Lords in this Committee who believe it is not, so let us have that discussion in the cold light of day to reflect on those points.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

When the Minister goes back to the policy Minister, will he reassure her that nobody in this debate has questioned the policy that the Government are seeking to pursue? All we are questioning is the method they have chosen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That point has been made, and I will discuss that with my colleagues in government. Clause 43 as drafted is before the Committee today, but there are opportunities to discuss it further if the noble Lord is not happy with any assurances that we can give outside the Committee to table amendments that can be debated and voted upon in due course. I will leave it at that.

Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach seeks to clarify the eligibility criteria for bail accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Under this provision, the Secretary of State has the power to provide accommodation to someone in exceptional circumstances only when they have been granted immigration bail and are subject to a residence condition that requires them to live at an address specified in that condition. The Home Office recognises that, where the Secretary of State is required to provide a person with accommodation to enable them to meet their bail conditions, a specified address cannot always be known at the time of the bail grant. Accordingly, it has been a long-standing policy position that bail can be granted with a residence condition to an address that is known at the time of the grant of immigration bail, or an address that is yet to be specified. In 2024, this was also set out explicitly in the relevant guidance. The policy is clear, and operational teams are already operating the legislation in this way, to ensure that someone can apply to the Home Office for bail accommodation without having been granted bail to a specific address. Therefore, the amendment—with its good intention—would make no material difference to the current operation of the legislation and is not necessary. I am happy to hear further from the noble Lord, but I invite him not to move his amendment.

On the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Amendment 146 would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against persons who breach the conditions attached to their leave in the UK. Such breaches of conditions may already be addressed by cancelling that leave and removing the person from the UK without the need to seek a deportation order. Mandating deportation in such cases is not therefore necessary. It will provide no guarantee that a person’s removal from the UK could be enforced if they were to make a human rights or protection claim against their removal.

Finally, Amendment 147 would replace existing criminal sanctions for offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 with a penalty of deportation. Overstayers and illegal entrants are already liable to removal from the UK. Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, consideration will be given to their deportation. With respect to the noble Lord, the amendment risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not result in an increase in removals from the UK.

This has been a serious debate that has raised a number of points. But I hope, given what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press his objection to Clause 43. I will meet noble Lords to discuss their objections further to understand their concerns better. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments so that we can examine the clause together.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group for their contributions to this debate. This has been a group that clearly reflects several different views, and I welcome that we have been able to have a debate on these issues.

We on these Benches remain firm in our resolve that conditional leave to enter or remain should be just that—conditional on criteria that seek to safeguard our communities, our public services and our economy. These conditions do not undermine our capacity to be compassionate, our capacity to help those who are in need, or our record of supporting those who need our help. They ensure that we have a system that is controlled and protects our country, and over which the Government can exercise their dutiful authority. These are fundamental duties and we have sought to support the Government in meeting their own objectives. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider these amendments as a way of empowering him and his colleagues to take action that is needed to ensure that our conditions are not optional. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very wide-ranging debate on an important group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and this discussion. I also join the words of sympathy for both the injuries of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Covid-related illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them back to hold the Government to account, as they do so well. I will go through each of the amendments in turn and try to give some reasonable commentary on each in the time I have.

Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is intended to probe the impact on business and employees of this clause. I hope I can reassure her that the previous Home Secretary has already engaged with businesses and representative bodies on the proposed legislation. I give a commitment that the new Home Secretary will continue to do so following this week’s reshuffle. In addition, the Secretary of State intends to conduct a formal consultation with employees and businesses, which will underpin updated guidance that we intend to bring forward, so that they are aware of their obligations prior to the implementation of the legislation. I hope that assists the noble Baroness on Amendment 150.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her Amendment 154A. It seeks to make it an offence to employ someone to deliver goods, meals or services using a vehicle if that person does not hold a full driving licence. In the UK, individuals can drive a variety of vehicles without a full driving licence, including some of the vehicles that she refers to in her amendment. There is already strong legislation in place to make sure that the DVLA, the responsible body, carries out checks to ensure applicants are not disqualified from holding a licence due to their immigration status. That is already a very strong issue for the DVLA as a whole. The Government have robust licensing and driving compliance measures in place to ensure that there is relevant driving licence regulation in force.

In this very Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers to prevent illegal working. Separately, through existing enforcement measures the Government are giving a very hard push, particularly following some examples of the type of abuse that the noble Baroness mentioned, on compliance with legislation to ensure that people are not being employed illegally, that people who have come here illegally are not being employed and that that is not undercutting legitimate businesses in their work. I think her amendment has those areas of work in mind, but we are covering that with this Bill and what is being done elsewhere.

Amendments 151 and 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, seek to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three. I acknowledge the intent behind these amendments. I know where the noble Baroness and others are coming from. However, I do not think these amendments are the right mechanism to achieve the aims they are seeking. We want to ensure that those who may have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery in particular are examined under that legislation. Therefore, I do not feel that this is the right way forward.

I will take the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to supply that information if he wishes to send it through to me—care of the Home Office, Marsham Street, London. We will certainly look at the information he has brought forward.

On Amendment 151, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and supporting those with genuine protection. It allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if their claims have been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. Those granted permission are limited to roles on the immigration salary list only. Employers are expected to uphold fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices for all individuals with the right to work.

Reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor—we have had a debate about that; I know some noble Lords will disagree with the use of that phrase—and would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. Furthermore, it would undermine the established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. Again, I take on board what noble Lords have said about why people are seeking to come to the UK, but the factors before us are a real concern for the Government.

On Amendment 152, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, as has been mentioned, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract, which provides safe accommodation and financial assistance to prevent destitution. Where applicable, those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision are considered for a grant of temporary permission to stay, which includes the right to work.

There are several reasons why the Government cannot support Amendment 152, one being that expanding access to employment at an earlier stage could incentivise misuse of the national referral mechanism, which may inadvertently encourage irregular migration or exploitation by traffickers who falsely promise access to work in the UK. The current framework maintains a clear distinction and upholds the integrity of the immigration system.

My noble friend Lord Rees made a very powerful case, and I was pleased to meet him, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and colleagues to engage on this matter. I value the representations that have been made and welcome continued collaboration. There is an argument that his amendment may carry unintended consequences, particularly for wider delivery and our modernisation of the asylum system. The Government’s position has been consistently clear and introducing an additional process subject to regular scrutiny could risk diverting focus from our broader strategic objectives.

However, my noble friend made a very important case for the Government to consider, and I want to reflect on it with colleagues. There are other ways in which my noble friend can get a regular report on the impact of the concerns he has, and there are ways to put pressure on the Government, such as the very good initiative by mayors to examine this issue, whether that be through parliamentary debate, Questions, Written Statements or Commons and Lords Select Committees. I will look again at what he said today because I think there is scope to ensure that we examine some of those areas, and I thank him for his amendment.

On Amendment 153 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister—although she is not in her place today—supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the Government are very concerned by the links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. I hope all noble Lords are reassured that in the immigration White Paper, published in May, we said we intend to reconsider how this route operates. I know I regularly ask for patience on these matters, but the immigration White Paper looks at it and recognises the genuine concerns that have been raised.

Allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer without restriction is already a feature of the existing system, as they have been able to do so since 2016. The ability to change makes it very clear that overseas domestic worker status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on their current employer and gives them an opportunity to escape abuse. We do not currently require them to inform the Home Office so that they are able to move more quickly and easily. During my time as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2012, when discussions were taking place on the Bill back then, I met Kalayaan and I was impressed by the cases it made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that that will be looked at as part of the immigration White Paper response.

My noble friend Lord Watson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, tabled Amendments 154 and 203D, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which concern migrant fishers and the question of seaman and transit to the UK to join a ship leaving UK waters. The Government’s long-standing position is that foreign nationals need permission to work in UK waters; this ensures consistency between those coming to work on the UK landmass and those transitioning through it. Contract seamen who enter the UK seeking to leave or join a ship are expected to leave the UK within seven days of arrival and are not given the right to work. Seafarers wishing to come and work in the UK should apply for a work visa that gives them the right to work in the UK. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to give work rights to those on temporary visas intending to allow transit only.

There are no plans to create a bespoke visa route for fishers as the immigration White Paper has very clearly set out our strategy for reducing reliance on international recruitment. However—and I hope this helps my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—we have established the new Labour Market Evidence Group to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, trading levels and participation by the domestic labour market, including at devolved government and regional levels. I expect it to make recommendations shortly about sectors or occupations in which workforce strategies are needed or the workforce labour market is currently failing. I hope that my noble friend can look at what is going to happen and the gathering of information on this issue so that we can examine it further.

In response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. It is within this framework that the fishers mentioned can seek assistance.

I cantered through those points because of the discussion we had. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and I will reflect on what has been said—I will certainly give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Will the Minister reflect a little more on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees? He said that the noble Lord made a powerful case—I think we all thought that. His principal argument against accepting the amendment seemed to be that the reports called for by the amendment could constitute an undesirable diversion of resources. He also argued that the debates in both Houses that the amendment would mandate could be secured by different means.

I suspect that the commendable longevity of the Minister has a price: he has been got at by Sir Humphrey. I used to be a Sir Humphrey and I was very good at this. The undesirable diversion of resources is a very good argument; better still is “unripe time” or “dangerous precedent”. If all else fails, there is “with the ambit of the vote”. They are all excellent arguments, but what is the harm in having debates on this issue every year in the Commons and the Lords? There is no downside to it; it is a good thing. It would give us the space, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, proposes, for a serious debate on this on the basis of the evidence. The Minister is being a little negative. He should go back and see Sir Humphrey and say, “There was a lot in this amendment. We ought to think seriously about it”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his experience. As he knows, having been there himself, the Government reflect on, take and determine positions across the board with ministerial engagement. Having started my 15th year as somebody in government, over that 28-year period, I am very aware that, when Ministers want to do something, they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.

Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.

The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.

In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister, whom I thank, started his response by saying that the Bill is not the right mechanism for the amendments. I think he was applying that comment to the whole group of amendments, not just to Amendment 154A. Without being psychic, I too have had my expectations met. Including a provision for the right to work would be the right thing to do, and it would be enlightened self-interest.

I too have never been persuaded by the idea of the right to work being a pull factor; there are plenty of push factors without one having to think about pull factors. Banning the right to work—as we have done, in effect—does not seem to have been a deterrent. That may answer the point.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in this whole space. He made a very powerful speech, but I thought that his amendment was less persuasive than his speech. I am more ambitious: I want to remove the restrictions so that the reports to the House can be on the impact of changes in the law, not just calling for changes in the law.

Mention was made of voluntary activity. I use the term “voluntary activity” rather than “voluntary work” because a problem for so long for people who want to put a huge amount of effort into volunteering is that it has been designated as work, not as voluntary activity. I was interested to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for training. That would be a good move forward—it really would be—so I thank him for that.

I will return to overseas domestic workers. They do not, in reality, have the ability to change employers. We are leaving people in appalling situations that they cannot escape. The changes made in 2016 were minimal, and we have failed people whom we should be protecting. I am very sad that we cannot move the situation forward tonight, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I know, I just realised that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that we will have a full discussion on Amendments 203F and 203G at a later date. I will take that as an hors d’oeuvre from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. It is important that he trails those issues because they are linked. I value that he has done that today. However, I will focus on the amendments before the Committee, Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These seek to confirm that the resources of the tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure that appeals are heard fairly within the 24-week timeframe.

Clauses 46 and 47 already set out that the statutory timeframe should be adhered to unless it is not reasonably practical to do so. This enables the judiciary to take into account any relevant factors when exercising its discretion and responsibility over case management and the listing of appeals. We in the Home Office are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal has the resources it needs to meet the growing backlog. and we want to ensure that we deliver on that backlog as a matter of some urgency. The tribunal has been given additional funding to boost the number of days it will be sitting in 2025-26 to near maximum capacity, and we are also consulting on uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees to support that capacity.

The period of 24 weeks is carefully chosen, as it balances the importance of resolving cases quickly, while the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure access to justice for all. To provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness, the resources of the tribunal are taken into consideration, and these provisions will not apply immediately following Royal Assent. There will be a period of implementation and operationalisation, during which the Home Office, the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service will ensure the tribunals’ readiness in the coming months. I hope all that will give the noble Baroness some reassurance on those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

While I acknowledge the fairness objectives underpinning Amendment 180, I cannot support Amendment 194, which would drive us in the opposite direction towards further delay, duplication and dysfunction.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for becoming the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this evening, particularly at this late hour. I am grateful for her introduction of the amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for being the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am still Lord Hanson for the purposes of the discussion before us today.

Age assessment is a difficult area of work and there is no single-combination assessment technique able to determine age with precision. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there are serious safeguarding risks if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding issues if children are treated as adults.

I will turn to the amendments before us and try to weave through them in a way that, I hope, assuages the concerns of the noble Baroness and gives a direction forward. On Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the completion of age assessments where an individual faces criminal charges, the current approach of the Home Office is that any decision on age made by the Home Office for immigration purposes is not binding on the UK courts. Where an individual is charged with a criminal offence, the CPS is advised of any age dispute issues that have arisen and will decide if it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Once proceedings are instigated, should the presiding judge have doubts about the individual being a child, the courts can take a decision on the age based on the available evidence or request that a substantive age assessment is undertaken.

The Home Office has introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in adult prison for immigration offences. This is something that none of us would want to see. Where an individual who has been assessed to be “significantly over 18” maintains their claim to be a child and is identified for potential criminal charges for immigration offences, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers. I hope that on both those counts, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment before the Committee today.

Amendment 162 is on the suggested use of visual age assessments as part of a safeguarding determination, identifying potential risks and support needs, rather than solely for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The noble Baroness has said that the initial age assessment is an extremely important first step to prevent the detention of children generally, including any accidental detention of someone who is believed to be an adult but subsequently found to be a child, and to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct adult or child immigration process. That is key. It provides that immigration officers may treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This is a particularly high threshold, and the benefit of the doubt remains key. Where doubt exists, individuals will be referred for further assessment.

As the noble Baroness said, a social worker may be present at the initial age decision stage. Where present, they will play a crucial role in the welfare of the individuals in their care and will support our Kent Intake Unit officers with their initial age decisions carried out at Western Jet Foil. Any views expressed by the social worker at this initial stage will be given a strong weighting, given the expertise they have in regularly working with children.

The Home Office has contractual arrangements with the Refugee Council to provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive by small boat and are moved to the Kent Intake Unit. That contract sees Refugee Council advisers working directly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children providing impartial and independent information, advice and guidance to help them navigate the asylum and looked-after children system. These amendments would make it mandatory for the Home Office to publish guidance that includes mechanisms for independent oversight. I note that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration already has oversight of Home Office practices and is not short of bringing forward reports about the areas we are discussing.

Amendment 163, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 194 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuburger, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They are about whether age assessment in relation to asylum claims should rest with the local authority according to the ADCS guidance. I ask the Committee to bear with me because we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. The amendments as tabled would mean that the Home Office would be bound to immediately notify a local authority in every instance where an individual claiming to be a child has been determined to be an adult and therefore may be placed in adult accommodation. This would apply even when an individual is obviously an adult. This creates the risk that already-stretched local authorities could cause significant safeguarding risks if adults have access, along with genuine and potentially vulnerable children, to children’s services including accommodation and education.

I hope it will reassure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already takes into account best practice within the age assessment guidance issued by the ADCS and the equivalent guidance in Scotland and Wales. Where the Home Office or an accommodation provider have concerns that an individual might be a child, it is now standard practice for a local authority referral to be raised. Even where a referral is not made, this does not prevent the individual from approaching a local authority for further consideration of their age.

As I said at the outset, the Government continue to review all options for age assessment. A parliamentary Written Statement issued to both Houses on 22 July indicated that work was being undertaken in the Home Office to look at science and technology innovation and the age assessment system. We have concluded that the most cost-effective option is to pursue a likely facial age estimation whereby AI technology trained on millions of images is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy. Again, I recognise that the noble Baroness raised some concerns about that. I hope I can reassure her that the Home Office is taking this seriously and that further testing and trialling of the technology will be conducted ahead of any integration into the system. It is important that we get that right, but it is also important that we try to find mechanisms to give greater clarity on what that age is over and above the individual eyes-on by a particular officer at the border.

I hope that, with those reasons, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee—the substitutes for the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, respectively—will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

As the substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I would like to make a point about AI. It is important that the Home Office and others use AI only where it is appropriate and safe. Quite a lot of work has been done across the piece in Parliament about the reliability or otherwise of facial recognition—because that is what this is— including by a Select Committee which I chaired. I have not been satisfied by any comments from the Government Benches since, including on the need for regulation and oversight. That must apply here. I would be deeply worried if we were to go ahead with using AI as a substitute for the human brain without the proper regulation in effect.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I echo totally what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. In my speech, I asked the Minister whether Parliament would have the chance to look at whether AI is used. Will he reply to that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are examining all of this, and there will need to be some further consideration. I will ensure that there is further discussion in Parliament, prior to that being undertaken.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. That is what we wanted to hear, and I very much hope we might have informal discussions before that comes to Parliament. Like some of the stuff more generally about age assessment, the meeting with the Minister was hugely helpful.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not be entirely surprised to hear I do not wholly agree with him. The point I was trying to make is that it is worse for a child to be in adult accommodation than for an adult to be in child accommodation. That is the point we ought to take most seriously.

At this late hour, let us leave it at that. With the Committee’s leave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.