Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today, over the course of this evening. The Bill’s focus, as the Minister stated at the outset, is illegal or irregular migration. I am grateful to him for laying out the rationale and context for the Bill, though I depart from him on much of the substance.

I particularly commend the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper. Given his long and distinguished career in the other place, as well as his time in government—as an Immigration Minister at one point—it is perhaps unsurprising that his excellent speech today was both illuminating and incisive. I for one look forward to many more contributions from him in the years ahead.

This debate has made for a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most important areas of responsibility for any Government: the control of our borders. That phrase is an interesting one, because it was only at the weekend that we heard a member of the Government admitting that the UK has lost control of our borders. This was a startling admission from the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, on a weekend that saw the highest daily total of arrivals this year—1,195 people on 19 boats—and the fourth highest figure ever recorded.

However, I admire this frankness—we need to be frank. We need unflinching candour, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough put it so elegantly. Controlling our borders is fundamental to our national security and to our integrity as a sovereign nation. Despite the decades of peace and globalisation we have all experienced over the last 80 years, it remains the first and foremost duty of any Government. We also need to recognise that controlling our borders is a way in which we define, sustain and protect our national identity, not just our national security.

I mentioned the events of the last weekend, because the situation we are seeing now is dire. Small boat crossings are up 30% on last year, and since this Government were elected last July, the numbers have increased. Almost 37,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2024. Of those who arrived that year, more than 23,000 did so after the election.

For all the condemnation we have heard tonight of the Rwanda Act, let us not pretend that the last year under the current Government has been anything other than a resounding failure in terms of illegal crossings. The gangs, self-evidently, have not been smashed.

This situation is untenable, but it is also, tragically, costing lives. The UN estimates that at least 78 migrants died in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record. It says that at least 225 migrants have lost their lives when attempting to cross since 2018. This is an unlawful route of entry into the UK, overseen by gangsters, that is, tragically, taking its toll of human life. That is why, among many other matters, we have to deter people from making this journey. None of this should be controversial.

I am sure that I am joined by noble Lords from across the House when I say that it is incumbent on the Government as a matter of supreme urgency to introduce measures which are courageous, bold and definitive enough to stop this level of illegal migration from happening. With regret, I do not believe the legislative proposals we have before us will achieve this.

Given the scale of the problems we face, I hope the Government will seriously consider the many concerns that have been raised today by those who have called for more stringent measures. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower outlined many of these issues in his opening speech.

In a moment, I will concentrate on some specific points where we believe there are significant problems with the Bill, but before I do so, I would like to address its context; namely, the provisions which are designed largely to undo the work of the last Government in terms of the Illegal Migration and safety of Rwanda Acts.

It is unsurprising that a new Administration will seek to undo some of the policies of their predecessor of a different political hue—that is democratic politics, after all. But let us be clear about the reality of what this will actually mean. It will mean that the Home Secretary is no longer duty-bound to make arrangements to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe country; it will mean that some illegal migrants are allowed to obtain British citizenship; and it will mean that asylum seekers will no longer be treated as over 18 if they refuse to take a scientific age assessment.

Those are just a few of the reasons why we believe the Bill will not succeed. If you were contemplating an illegal crossing into the UK, would a degree of protection from removal, British citizenship, and a bypass of age checks make you more or less likely to attempt the trip as an illegal migrant? More likely, of course.

As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, it is important to ask why people try to come to the UK illegally. The answer to that lies in part in the provisions of the Bill, I contend. In removing these key provisions, the Government propose to replace them with new offences, which are one example, we say, of where technical measures simply will not work in practice. The Bill creates a new offence of selling and handling small boat parts for use in channel crossings. The Bill will also make it illegal to supply life jackets suspected of being for use by people-smuggling gangs and to supply forged ID documents. These are very specific, technical points.

However, simply as a matter of logic, criminalising such activity makes little sense. These supply chains are based in Europe. The boats are coming from France to the UK. The point at which the lifejackets, boats and any forged documents get to the UK is when they appear on the beaches where illegal migrants are landed—at which point, I am afraid, it is far too late. It may be that there is provision in the Bill for such offences to occur outside the UK, but the reality is that, by the time perpetrators are prosecuted, the boats will have arrived. In essence, the Government are proposing to tear up laws that created a direct disincentive to make the journey in the first place and replace them with a list of new offences, which in practice will operate only once migrants are already here.

Other problems with this Bill include the proposal for a new Border Security Commander. Despite the title, if we dig a little below the surface, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we find that what the Government are actually proposing is a civil servant acquiring a redesignated role and, if I may add, a somewhat vague remit—and that is before we get to the potential for duplicating the work of the Small Boats Operational Command. This proposal does not appear to add value at present.

The Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for setting the Government’s strategic priorities for border security. Surely that strategic priority is simple and can be stated in one sentence: stopping illegal migration and protecting our borders. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary do not need a new agency or office to tell them this.

Does the Minister believe that, in addressing this issue, we need to take tougher steps to crack down on organised crime in this area? Would he support amendments that might be tabled in Committee to strengthen the powers of the Border Security Commander so that, when the Bill leaves this place, it proposes a cogent and effective office, able to tackle head on the crisis that we are discussing?

I turn to the importance of a deterrent and its absence from the Bill—a point that many noble Lords have made. We need to prioritise stopping people making the journey in the first place. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said—far more eloquently than I can—the only way we can address this problem is by creating a substantial and meaningful deterrent. If we want illegal migrants to stop coming, we must give them no reason whatever to want to come to the UK; otherwise, they will go to any lengths to circumvent even the strongest legal prohibitions.

The numbers I cited earlier show that people-smuggling gangs are circumventing the law as it stands already—and that is before the Government repeal large swathes of the last Government’s immigration legislation. Surely the Minister cannot be confident that this Bill contains a serious, coherent deterrent to people who are weighing up the decision to cross the channel. The changes proposed to citizenship and staying in the UK simply will not deter people who want to come here illegally. As my noble friend Lord Harper said, the Bill might lead to the removal of the Rwanda Act from the statute book but it contains no deterrent itself. This point was also made by my noble friends Lord Swire, Lord McInnes and Lord Horam, and others.

We have some suggestions for the Minister, which I hope he will consider seriously as we progress to Committee. I have suggested some of these policies already in the Chamber. The first is that we automatically deport anyone who arrives into our country via an illegal, unlawful route. We are a caring and considerate nation. People across this country have opened their homes and their family lives to refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. There are other successful resettlement schemes. We have safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum in our country, so we should not tolerate people skipping the queue by trying to enter illegally. The British people possess a profound compassion, but they also have a deep sense of fair play. When that kindness and fairness are exploited, we should not tolerate it—especially as it comes at the expense of people who do use legal, recognised routes to seek asylum.

Secondly, we propose that the Human Rights Act be disapplied from all immigration matters. This would prevent foreign nationals from exploiting our courts with tenuous human rights arguments designed to avoid deportation or exploit the asylum system. The Human Rights Act is of course designed to protect and uphold fundamental rights, but this is demonstrably not how it is used in matters of immigration. I speak as someone who, in a past life as a lawyer, has acted for asylum seekers. The Human Rights Act has been used to prevent the deportation of convicted foreign criminals. It is tying the hands of government and preventing the deportation of those who cause harm in our communities.

I note with interest what the current Government have said about the interpretation of Article 8 in immigration cases. There is an acceptance by the Home Secretary herself that the application of Article 8 of the convention raises significant concerns. Those who have little respect for fundamental rights should not be able to hide behind such rights when their actions catch up with them. This is a sensible proposal that will ensure that foreign criminals are no longer able to impose themselves on the communities they harm.

Finally, we on these Benches encourage the Government to adopt a legally binding annual cap on migration, voted on by Parliament. A measure that limits levels of migration requires political courage, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, stated. This would ensure that migration levels are determined by the British people through their elected representatives. For decades, the British people have demanded, and politicians have promised, dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments—and, of course, I freely accept that that includes the previous one—have not delivered. It is now time to deliver what the public want. We propose that the Government should be legally tied to a cap—a promise in law to control immigration in line with what communities up and down the country are telling us is their limit. I anticipate that the Minister will welcome a proposal of a cap. If he and the Government are confident that the measures in the Bill will reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally, making themselves accountable to the British people is surely something they will support.

To conclude, the debate has raised many interesting points. I am sure that we all agree that this is a profoundly serious issue and one that is of fundamental importance to people across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that we need to stop people coming here illegally, and I do not believe, with respect to the Minister, that the proposals in the Bill will do that. We need a system closed to criminals and which is intolerant of those trying to exploit its structures and free to take the necessary steps to protect our borders and communities. More than anything, we need a forceful, effective deterrent to stop people coming here illegally in the first place.

We intend to push our proposals in Committee to make this a Bill that does deter illegal migrants. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we progress to the first day in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

7: Clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and(d) increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds further objectives to the Commander’s functions.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I will speak to the further amendments in this group.

The Prime Minister said during his visit to Italy in September 2024:

“No more gimmicks. This Government will tackle the smuggling gangs who trade the lives of men, women and children across borders”.


I say to the Minister that we must be very careful that the Border Security Commander is not one such gimmick. We are told that the commander

“must have regard to the objectives of … maximising the effectiveness”

and co-ordination of other authorities, but what does that mean in practice? That is not a power of direction, it is not a position of operational command, and it is not even statutory oversight. What is more, the commander is expected to publish from time to time a strategic priority document that merely sets out what the commander thinks the threats are and what the priorities should be—and even that cannot be published without the consent of the Secretary of State and a consultation.

Border security is not an abstract exercise. It is about real threats, people smuggling, trafficking, organised crime, the movement of dangerous goods and hostile actors seeking to exploit our borders. If this role is meant to mean anything at all then the commander must be empowered to act, not just observe. They must be able to co-ordinate, direct and enforce, not simply suggest, advise and hope that someone listens. As it stands, the first few clauses of the Bill grant the commander very little in the way of real powers. Clause 3(1) gives the commander only two objectives, Clause 3(2) states that the commander must issue a so-called strategic priority document, and Clause 4 states that the commander must prepare an annual report.

In the spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £280 million per year in funding for Border Security Command on top of the £150 million that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Budget. That gives the commander a total of £430 million in overall budget—that is, £430 million to write two reports and adhere to two objectives. While we on these Benches welcome that extra funding, we must ask what that money will actually fund. How can the operation of the commander’s functions cost that much money? Might it not be better for the money to be funded directly into Border Force, the coastguard or immigration enforcement?

If we are to have a Border Security Commander then surely we should give that office far greater authority in its objectives than what the Bill currently delivers. That is what our amendments attempt to achieve. They seek to add further fundamental objectives to the functions of the Border Security Commander.

Amendment 7 states that the commander must have regard to the objectives of reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings and increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations that facilitate illegal crossings—or to smash the gangs, in the phrase of the Prime Minister from the general election last year. This amendment is completely in step with the Government’s stated aims. In fact, at Second Reading the Minister said that the key performance indicators for Border Security Command are

“a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs”.—[Official Report, 2/6/25; col. 588.]

I ask as a direct challenge: if the Minister believes that those are the key indicators for success, as stated to the Committee, then why would he not wish to put them in the Bill?

Amendment 8 would make preventing the boarding of vessels and illegal entry and facilitating the return of those with no right to be here explicit functions of the commander. Again, this goes to the heart of tackling the issue we are discussing. In effect, we want it in black and white in the Bill that the commander will be given the objective of reducing illegal entry to the country. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Since 2018, when the figures were first recorded, more than 150,000 people have arrived in small boats. In 2024, 36,816 people were detected making the crossing. I would like to understand why the Government do not think it is worth while to give the Border Security Commander the direct objective of reducing or even ending those arrivals.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered the points for Members of the Committee. It is up to them whether they wish to pursue their amendments further.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. Some of the contributions were outside the subject matter of my amendments but made some very important and significant arguments, especially from noble Lords who were not able to be present at Second Reading. I particularly point to the speech of my noble friend Lord Goschen, who asked some very pointed and forensic questions about the nature of the security command. I am not sure that he received an answer that satisfied him, but we will see how this transpires.

We have heard again and again that the Bill, and the creation of the Border Security Commander, are meant to signal a new era in the Government’s approach to illegal migration and organised criminal networks. If that is to be the case, the reality has to live up to the rhetoric. At present, I do not believe that it does. Our amendments seek to give substance to a role that currently lacks it and to ensure that the commander is tasked not with observation but with action. Without clear objectives, real powers and meaningful authority, this role risks becoming the most expensive strategic document writer in the history of Whitehall.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a question about one of our amendments including prosecutions. We are not suggesting for a minute that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for prosecuting. I was pointing to what the Minister said at Second Reading: that the success of Border Security Command would be measured by a reduction in crossings and an increase in prosecutions. These amendments simply seek to put those objectives in black and white. We do not understand why the Government should be reluctant to define in law as objectives the very outcomes that they claim to be delivering.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we do not believe that this is otiose. We think it is important. The amendments that we have proffered are the opportunity to correct that. They would ensure that the commander’s functions are explicitly tied to the outcomes that the Government say they want. They provide objectives that would lead to urgent decision-making on asylum claims. They would empower the commander to issue binding directions to the partner authorities, et cetera.

The stakes here are very high. The British people are watching. They are right to expect more than well-meaning structures; they expect real enforcement, real deterrence, real co-ordination and, above all, real outcomes. If the Government are serious about regaining control of our borders, they must give the commander the tools to do the job. We think that these amendments are a constructive, credible way forward and that they give the role meaning, direction and power.

If the Minister continues to be emollient, I also encourage him to be reflective and to reflect on these amendments, not just for the sake of the legislation but for the sake of public trust and national credibility. Let us not settle for appearances; let us legislate for results. I hope the Government seriously consider adopting our amendments in the future but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

9: Clause 3, page 2, line 30, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, alongside the other amendments in this group, seeks to amend the strategic priority document issued by the commander. The Government envisage that this strategic priority document, as outlined in Clause 3, is essential to focusing the Border Security Commander’s priorities and that its contents will outline the principal threats to border security and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities must have regard.

I therefore ask why the Government have decided it must be issued simply “from time to time” rather than annually, as proposed in Amendment 9. If the Government are so confident, should they not issue this document annually? From time to time could mean very rarely. If the role is to be taken seriously, it must come with measurable goals. It goes without saying that a vague timeframe renders the publishing of a document a somewhat arbitrary display of the commander’s responsibility, instead of a fulfilment of his strict duty to protect our borders. I acknowledge that there is an annual reporting duty. That reinforces, in my view, the need for this document to be produced annually too.

There is one point in this clause on which I genuinely seek clarification from the Minister, because it goes to the necessity of the provision as a whole. Subsection (2) requires the commander to assess

“the principal threats to border security”.

This goes to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the last group: is the assessment of principal threats to security not properly a function to be undertaken by Ministers, most obviously the Home Secretary, with the Home Office, her 38,000 or so staff, the Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, the Small Boats Operational Command, the Migration Advisory Committee and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? In seeking to place this duty to assess principal threats on the commander, I ask the Minister where responsibility lies.

Secondly, the Bill requires a rather slender number of inclusions in the strategic priority document. If the commander is to prepare a statement of strategic priorities, should it not be more comprehensive? My Amendments 10 and 12, and Amendment 11 from my noble friend Lord Goschen, attempt to rectify this.

Amendment 10 would require the commander to include an assessment of the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry, reducing the number of sea crossings and arranging for timely and effective removals, including to a safe third country. The Government have stated that they believe the creation of this new position is essential in deterring migration; if that is so, why not require the commander to consider those factors when drafting his overall assessment of threats to our borders?

I am afraid it is true, given the crossings this spring and early summer, that the Government have not succeeded in their mission. We know that on 21 May, 825 people crossed the channel; on 13 June, 919 made the crossing; and on 31 May, 1,195 people journeyed. The Government have presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter—September to December 2024. Given these figures, does the Minister not agree that an explicit requirement relating to reducing illegal crossings should feature in the commander’s strategic priorities?

I welcome my noble friend Viscount Goschen’s amendment to my amendment; I believe it would a crucial addition to the strategic priorities that the commander must consider. We know that all those who choose to make the crossing across the channel have transited through a safe third country. Understanding the reasons why they do not therefore choose to remain in those safe countries is the first step to deterring them effectively. For that same reason, I and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower have included in Amendment 10 an assessment of removals to safe third countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

15: Clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
““illegal entry to the United Kingdom” is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences);”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will speak also to Amendment 17; both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I will also reflect briefly on Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Amendment 15 is a matter of legal precision. Legal precision, especially in issues as sensitive and complex as immigration enforcement, is a necessity. This amendment would define illegal entry to the United Kingdom with direct reference to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. That Act has long provided the statutory foundation for offences relating to unlawful entry and overstaying. If we are serious about creating a coherent framework for the commander to operate within, we must be clear about what we mean by “illegal entry”. Without this definition, the term is left open to interpretation and could result in confusion, inconsistency and perhaps even legal challenge. By tying a definition directly to the existing law, we would ensure that there is no ambiguity and no risk of the commander operating under uncertain or shifting interpretations. It is a simple, necessary fix and sets widely accepted parameters, not only for our discussion now but for the law once it comes into force.

Amendment 17 is likewise rooted in common sense. It defines sea crossings as

“journeys by water from another country for the purpose of reaching, and gaining entry into, the United Kingdom”.

That is important because it makes it clear that a sea crossing can be regarded as having occurred from any third country. It is vital that we draft this legislation now in a way that allows our enforcement authorities to take robust action to stop this threat. How we define these core terms is important to ensuring that we can do this successfully.

We note that the Government’s current intention is to include sea crossings that originate only in France, Belgium or the Netherlands, as is stated in the offence of endangering another during sea crossings in Clause 18. We have an amendment to address that in a later group, so I will not dwell on it now, but suffice it to say that we do not think we should be narrowing the scope of the definition only to crossings that begin in these three countries. They might be the countries that illegal migrants cross from now, but we must ensure that the legislation is future-proofed. Given that the strategy—indeed, much of the public discourse—centres on the dangers and deterrence of these crossings, it is only right that the Bill is clear in defining what it actually refers to. Our amendment would close that gap.

I turn briefly to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which raises an interesting point about whether private bodies carrying out public functions are captured under the definition of “public authority”. I suggest some caution, though: although the intention is to probe and not prescribe, we must be wary of unintentionally expanding the net of liability obligation without fully understanding the operational and legal issues and consequences. If private contractors working at the border are to be brought within the scope of the commander’s influence, that should be considered through a fuller and more deliberative process, and not inserted without clear parameters.

So, although I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, I hope the Government can offer some clarification, perhaps in guidance or regulation rather than in primary legislation at this stage. The two amendments in our names are about clarity, consistency and good legislative practice, and they would support the effectiveness of the commander. I urge the Government to support them, and I beg to move.

[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.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

20: Clause 4, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) state the number of people trafficking gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action in the financial year.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower refer to the annual reports clause in the Bill. We are told time and time again that the Government’s priority is to “smash the gangs”. We hear at the Dispatch Box, both here and in the other place, that the immigration policies of the current Government are cracking down on the criminal networks who profit from vulnerable people. We are assured that progress is being made and that enforcement is working, but when it comes to the results, the actual measurable outcomes, we are met with a very different picture. I shall not restate the statistics that I have been over already this afternoon.

Our amendment to Clause 4 simply asks the Government to state in each annual report the number of people-trafficking gangs that that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action. That is it: it is not an unreasonable demand; it is not an operational risk; it is just seeking the facts, if the Government have them. If the Government really are dismantling these criminal gangs, they would have no reason to oppose this. If the policy is working, the data should be on hand and should strengthen the case that the Government are so eager to make. Transparency would serve to confirm what is claimed is already happening.

There has so far been a lack of openness around this supposedly central policy objective, and that raises questions about whether the crackdown is as effective as claimed, whether the strategy is working and whether the targets are being measured. If the Government cannot or will not report on how many trafficking gangs have been taken off the streets, how can the public be expected to trust that this is a meaningful priority? This amendment simply seeks transparency and facts, rather than slogans, and if the Government are serious about earning confidence, we gratefully suggest that they should adopt it. They should have nothing to hide and every reason to show us the results.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)]

I thank the Minister for that. I do not want to repeat myself, but if the Government are confident in this policy, and if they believe that their approach is producing results, what possible reason is there not to publish the data? The Minister mentioned many statistics that put the previous Government in what he described as a poor light. I could also cite statistics from the past year, but I will not do so; I have cited them before in this Chamber.

If the Government truly want to earn trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they should adopt this amendment without hesitation. They should put their money where their mouth is and be honest with us about how well the policy is performing. That is simply what we seek to do. The time for slogans has passed; the time for evidence, scrutiny and measurable success is now. I urge the Committee and the Government to reflect on these points but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I have not heard too many debates in which your Lordships have moaned about the lack of lawyers participating, but we have listened to two people who claim not to be experts.

I will touch on Clause 13 in the context of Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This is really a question for the Minister: I do not understand Clause 13(3)(b), which is the “reasonable excuse” related to whether the individual concerned was

“acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.

That is an extraordinarily widely drawn and unqualified reasonable excuse ground.

It would certainly help me and may even be of assistance to the broader Committee if the Minister could give a couple of examples of the types of scenario envisaged and could provide some reassurance that this is not too broadly drawn as an area to provide a reasonable excuse. I genuinely do not know and do not have a particular view about that, but, on the face of it, without further qualification, it seems to be very broadly drawn. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

30: Clause 13, page 7, line 8, after “supply” insert “or has in their possession with intent to supply”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group are to do with expanding two of the offences in the Bill as drafted. The Bill criminalises only the supply or offer to supply articles for use in immigration crime but fails to cover what is often a critical precursor to that act—the possession of such articles with intent to supply. My amendment seeks to address what we say is a clear loophole in the Bill.

If someone is found holding forged documents, counterfeit passports, boat parts or other materials commonly used to facilitate illegal entry with the clear intention of supplying them to others, that is not innocent behaviour; it is preparatory, deliberate and deeply harmful to the integrity of our immigration system. We do not accept this kind of gap in legislation dealing with drug offences or the possession of firearms. Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for example, criminalises possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. If we do not accept such gaps in other legislation, we should not accept them here.

The Government have talked up their expansion of border security powers, and the Prime Minister has spoken of providing counterterrorism-style powers. If so, all possible loopholes in these offences should be closed. If we are serious about disrupting organised networks and cracking down on those who profit from unlawful immigration, the law must allow us to intervene before the supply takes place, not simply after the fact. Amendment 30 would therefore simply bring the offence in Clause 13 into alignment with other similar offences. It aims to strengthen the clause and close the loophole.

The other amendment I propose to the offences regarding articles for use in immigration crime is Amendment 39. This amendment is intended to help the Government by strengthening the offence in this clause. It looks to close another loophole that could permit smuggling gangs to escape conviction. The effect of this amendment would be to expand the offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime to cover a crucial additional scenario—namely, where a person arranges for one person to receive a relevant article from a third party. That may seem like a small change, but it would address a significant gap.

The current law targets those who receive, arrange to receive, remove or dispose of such articles themselves, or who assist another person to remove or dispose of relevant articles. They are rightly included in the nature of the offence in the Bill. But, as it stands, were a person to arrange for two other people to exchange a relevant article, the person who organised such an exchange could escape liability. Therefore, they would not be liable for criminal penalty, despite clearly being a at the heart of the offence committed.

This is particularly important given that, in the world of organised immigration crime, individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging exchanges between others, keeping their own hands clean while remaining the central co-ordinator, and often beneficiary, of criminal activity. This amendment would simply ensure that those who orchestrate these exchanges are held to account just as much as those who carry them out.

If we are to deter and disrupt the criminal networks profiting from illegal migration, we must be prepared to legislate against the full chain of facilitation and not just the visible ends of it. I respectfully submit that the Minister should think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the Government risk creating in the legislation, which can be easily identified if a practical operational perspective is taken. I hope he accepts these amendments, and I beg to move.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to the amendments tabled by him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The purpose behind these two amendments is to ensure that those who possess an item believed or suspected to be used in immigration crime, and those who arrange or facilitate the supply of an article for immigration crime, fall into the scope of the offence.

On Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made some salient points about other offences currently on the statute book. In a spirit of openness and wanting to listen to noble Lords, the Home Office would be happy to take this issue up with operational partners to scope whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. We are certainly serious about using this legislation, as my noble friend the Minister said, to crack down on smuggling gangs. This could potentially be a helpful addition to the Bill, but for now I request that the amendment be withdrawn, and we will update the House further on the matter later in the Bill’s passage.

We are sympathetic to the motivation behind Amendment 39, but I can confirm that arranging the supply of an article relevant to the proposed offence would fall under the clause as drafted. It might be described as “brokering” or “offering to supply”. Either Clause 13(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) are considered wide enough to cover this activity since, for example, an offer to supply would have been made in the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, as the individual would be supplying or offering to supply an item that they knew or suspected was for use in immigration crime. I hope that is clear and, while thanking the noble Lord for tabling the amendments—and indeed agreeing with the sentiment and motivation behind them—I respectfully reject Amendment 39 as unnecessary and ask him to permit further time for Amendment 30 to be considered.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his speech. It has been a long afternoon and I feel that, at the very end of it, I have made a tiny step of progress. I think he agrees that the case is simple, because it is a strong case: we are not asking for anything radical, just for the law to keep pace with the realities of how organised immigration crime actually works. I will say no more about Amendment 30.

On Amendment 39, I just ask the noble Lord, as he has offered, to think about it carefully. It is critical, we say, to cover the organisers, the co-ordinators, those who sit above the exchange itself and arrange for others to carry it out. They often avoid direct handling precisely because they know that the law can be weak when it comes to intermediaries, and we cannot allow them to exploit that weakness. The amendment is grounded in the operational reality of how trafficking and smuggling networks function, but I am very grateful for the indications that he has given and, for those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel 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 German (LD)]

My Lords, the debate has obviously spanned beyond the amendments before us, but it is worth stating at the outset that the focus of these amendments is to determine that the provisions are aimed at the particular people who are breaking the law—the smugglers. The focus has to be that it helps law enforcement and the judiciary to focus their resources on the people that the Government really want to apprehend in order to tackle the criminal gangs. There are words—which I will come to in a moment—on which I agree a different definition might be more helpful, but it is worth while repeating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the international regulations and rules that guide us and we put around ourselves and the importance of those.

I am reluctant to go into this field of the reinterpretation of the ECHR, but one mistake relates to the fact that some countries signed an unaddressed letter which gave no indication whatever of what changes to the ECHR they were looking for. The person who was supposed to receive it read about it in the newspapers. I contrast that arrangement, where nothing could be made of the letter because it gave no sense of what was to be changed, to the approach of the British Secretary of State for Justice, who approached the matter in a proper manner and spoke to the people concerned, the right Committee of Ministers, who are responsible for any review of the ECHR. There is already a set of motions in place to enable that discussion to occur. It would be worth while trying to understand what people in other countries want to do and what they need to happen in order to change, but those discussions are under way because, essentially, this is a living document that needs to be changed, interpreted and looked at as time goes by, and that is happening at present.

We should be clear that these amendments would simply treat the people who are coming here with a deal of compassion. I absolutely agree that we have to separate genuine asylum seekers from the rest. We cannot do that by our own legislation until they arrive here. There are no routes by which people can arrive here, apart from the few which would not affect the people from the countries who are most affected in this matter. What makes sense with these amendments—maybe not entirely in the words they use—is that they are trying to distinguish who we are going for and who we are gunning at, as it were.

Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that the scope of the offences in Clauses 13 and 14 apply only to the smugglers. The amendments seek to link the offences to financial and material gain. If there is another way of explaining the financial and material gain as being the method by which you determine a smuggler, then obviously it would be worth noting.

In that respect, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about how to deal effectively with the migrants situation. Fortunately, I went to visit the site of the Jungle in Calais two weeks ago. It is now fields; there is nothing there but fields, grass and animals grazing, and that is because the French authorities dealt with groups of people to make sure that they fit with the strategy they are adopting. They had no complaints about the way that was working at the present time. Maybe times have changed, and maybe people need to be thinking differently.

Amendment 35 proposes that the defence excuse in Clause 13 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”—

and that is the question. In mentioning “certain circumstances”, one needs to define what those circumstances are; otherwise, the courts would not be able to make the appropriate case work.

Amendment 38 suggests that the scope of offence of Clause 14 should include for financial or material gain. That is the distinguishing factor between those who are smuggled and those who are not.

Amendment 44 suggests that the defence excuse in Clause 14 should ensure protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, one has to define the words “certain circumstances”, because otherwise it becomes too general.

Amendment 57 suggests that the reasonable excuse defence in Clause 16 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, that wording needs to be tightened up.

Finally, Amendment 203 would provide

“a statutory defence for refugees in certain circumstances”

for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Obviously, there is a need for tightening up in this matter to ensure that we can separate out the people for whom the Bill is intended to deal with: those who are causing the misery, those who are trafficking and those who are smuggling and those who are spread around Europe to make sure that these schemes work. These are the people whom the Bill should be aimed at and is aimed at. All these amendments would do is make sure that we entirely focus our efforts on those people who are causing these criminal acts.

Therefore, I suggest that these amendments have a right sense of direction in what they intend. They enshrine the international regulations which we sit within. It is not just one convention; it is quite clear from the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that there are a raft of international conventions, laws and rules that we sit behind. We are part of that international way of dealing with matters, and if we lose that way of dealing with it and do not follow it through, we will never be able to solve something which is so international in its nature.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their speeches in this group. Again, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the rationale behind these amendments. The general thrust of all noble Lords’ amendments, however, is to seek to impose further limits on the exercise of legal powers designed to tackle people-smuggling gangs and their supply chains.

On all these new offences, we need to be both clear and bold in providing our law enforcement agencies and our courts with the legal tools and powers they need to be robust in tackling the gangs, who are both the root cause of and the major beneficiaries from this problem. We on these Benches have rightly criticised the Government for the rhetoric around smashing the gangs—which in our view, at least at the moment, is empty rhetoric—but it is a clear fact that we need to tackle the criminal gangs, and it is right that we use this as an opportunity to shape our legislative framework so that we can do that as effectively as possible.

Amendments 33 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would add an additional demand: for the person to have committed an offence, it must be demonstrated as well that they have financially benefited from the supply of a relevant article for use in connection with an offence. Again, I understand the rationale and the intentions behind the amendment, but I put myself against it and support the current Government—again, a slightly rare position to be in. Unlike other aspects of the Bill, it seems clear to us on these Benches that, as it stands, the text of Clauses 13, 14 and 16, which create these offences, is adequate, clear and sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we have Amendments 51 and 51B in this group. Amendment 51 would add mobile phones and chargers to the list of relevant articles. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is just leaving; he may be coming back. There are innocent examples of the use of mobile phones in the JCHR’s report. Mobile phones are very common, and we are looking for proportionality in all this. Some years ago, I quite often heard opponents of asylum seekers and refugees, who were outraged, say, “They even have mobile phones”, as if that was some sort of great luxury and that having them meant they would be perfectly capable of getting, possibly not first-class seats, but certainly seats on a plane, because they were clearly very civilised, well-equipped and moneyed. I have not actually heard that for some time. Mobile phones are not a luxury these days; they enable asylum seekers to keep in touch with their family. I think that is hugely important, not for any sinister reason but because they are a lifeline for mental health, quite apart from more practical examples.

Amendment 51B speaks to the regulations which I mentioned in the last group. The Secretary of State can, by regulations, alter the list of relevant articles, and my amendment would provide for consultation with organisations that aim, without charge, to assist asylum seekers. I think that that point was made by one of those organisations in its briefings to noble Lords. After all, if there is to be a change, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the people who know what happens on the ground—I am not suggesting that the Government do not—and who have that particular take on it should be consulted.

I have signed Amendment 56, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has spoken. People travel in groups—not everybody, but some people—and it seems natural, to me anyway, that a husband would perhaps carry documents for his wife and children, or a mother would carry documents for her children. I think that it would be right to make that change.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this group of amendments around the safeguards to the offences. As I have already said on previous groups, it is the position of His Majesty’s Opposition Benches that the new criminal offences in the Bill must be as watertight as possible. We know that people-smuggling criminal gangs are incredibly innovative in their efforts to continue running their illegal operations, concocting ever more ingenious methods to circumvent the law. We must do all we can to frustrate that. To do so, we need to ensure that there are no loopholes that could be used to evade legal repercussions.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, seems, to us, with respect, to be unnecessary. As the Bill stands, the person in question already has a defence if they are able to show that they were carrying out a rescue, or if

“they were acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.

In my view, if someone has broken a law, as they will have done if they are charged under this clause, without being able to avail themselves of those two specific defences, then they have committed an offence for which they should be held liable. The amendment proposes that we, in effect, waive the law if the person shows that their actions were self-relating. That is a dangerous precedent to establish—that someone acting to benefit only themselves can get away with actions that are demonstrably illegal. If someone knowingly engages in criminal activity and is unable to have recourse to the defences set out in the Bill, we need to be clear that they have committed a crime and should still be liable as a result. In our view, the amendment would blow wide open the rigour and focus of the offences as currently drafted, which is the opposite of the strong message we need to send to those who—we cannot forget—are illegally violating our borders.

Amendments 50 and 62 would mean that, for the purposes of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, any offence committed under the relevant clauses would not be regarded as a particularly serious crime. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explain the rationale for the amendments, and I completely understand the concern that lies behind them. I think I am right in saying that the convention talks about constituting

“a danger to the community of that country”,

and I completely accept that that is very strong language, but I think it is important to consider this in context. Illegal migrants enter the UK without going through any checks whatever. It can be almost impossible to find out who such migrants are, where they have come from, what their history is, and, fundamentally, what sort of people they are. Safe and legal routes are safe and legal precisely because they answer these questions. Let us not forget the incident that happened in May, when five Iranian nationals were arrested for planning what the Home Secretary described as a major terror attack. They arrived in the United Kingdom by irregular means, including small boats and a lorry, before claiming asylum. One of those people was taken out of his taxpayer-funded accommodation when he was arrested. Is it not clear that those men constituted a danger to the community of our country? We need to appreciate the risks that we run when faced with this system and with the problem that we have no idea of who those people are or the potential risk they pose. The police and security services were successful in foiling that attack, but we cannot guarantee that that would happen indefinitely. This problem obviously and demonstrably risks the safety of our national community, and we need to engage with the law in a way that reflects this. For that reason, we oppose those amendments.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I will again speak against the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I recognise that both these amendments are probing amendments, but I suggest they are unnecessary. Clause 16 already provides a robust and comprehensive defence of reasonable excuse for those charged with the offence and collecting information for use in immigration crime. Subsection 8(b)(v) explicitly references those preparing to provide medical care or emergency shelter or supplies. In plain terms, that is humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, subsection 8(c) goes further by protecting those acting on behalf of bona fide organisations assisting asylum seekers. So it is our view that humanitarian activity is not only covered but it is expressly protected in the text. Therefore, to insert an additional, open-ended reference to humanitarian support simply risks introducing ambiguity to a legal provision, which already strikes a careful balance between protecting genuine humanitarian actors while still enabling the prosecution of those who aid illegal immigration. It is vital that the law is clear and enforceable and it is our view that the clause already offers wide and meaningful protection to doctors, volunteers, NGOs and others engaged in humanitarian work.

On Amendment 60, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I completely understand the desire to ensure that legal professionals are not inadvertently caught up in Clause 16, but I disagree with the amendment as it stands. It seeks to add a new limb to the reasonable excuse defence, namely that a person was carrying out a legal activity as defined by the Legal Services Act. It is arguable that that protection already exists in the clause as drafted; it is a flexible and general defence in terms of reasonable excuse, and subsection (8) sets out several examples of what that defence might include: journalism, academic research, rescue efforts et cetera, but crucially also those acting on behalf of legitimate asylum support organisations. I respectfully say that this is a deliberately broad and protective provision. It gives courts ample discretion to protect those acting lawfully, including legal professionals who are working to assist asylum seekers.

As I said, I understand that these are probing amendments, so I am sure it would be of benefit to the whole Committee to hear the Minister’s response, although, as it stands, our perspective on this matter is that the clause as drafted provides adequate protections for those acting in good faith.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to my Amendment 188. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lord Harper. This amendment inserts a new clause to exclude illegal migrants and foreign criminals from GDPR provisions in relation to personal data processing by authorities carrying out immigration enforcement functions.

We need to be clear about the principles at stake here: security, accuracy and the rule of law. If we are serious about defending the integrity of our borders and our domestic security, we must ensure that those on the front line, our law enforcement agencies, have the full set of legal tools they need to do their jobs effectively. That is a thread that has run through many of our remarks from these Benches in Committee, for the important reason that we expect these organisations to protect us and to uphold the rule of law. We must do all we can to help them do that.

--- 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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate that has departed in many ways from the list in the group that we are debating. But it has been a worthwhile and fascinating debate and, as my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said, the context for it has to be what he termed the growing sense of injustice on the part of many people in this country about the direction of our immigration system. That should be borne in mind by us all as we debate not just this group but the Bill in general.

Returning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, which attempts to remove Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act from the statute book, I suggest that the principle of that section is straightforward and hard to disagree with. That principle is: if an individual is a national of a country where there is no general risk of persecution, where human rights are respected and where there is access to justice and democratic accountability, is it not right that their claim be considered inadmissible unless there are exceptional grounds? Is it not right that, instead, we focus our finite resources and time on those fleeing regimes where oppression, conflict and state violence are real and present dangers?

The practical benefits of Section 59 are significant. It reduces administrative and clerical delay, streamlines caseworking, ensures that officials can focus on the most serious and urgent claims, and establishes a clear statutory list of safe states, with the ability to amend that list through accountable parliamentary procedure. That list is not set in stone; it can change, and it creates both clarity and flexibility.

By failing to adopt this section, we risk achieving the opposite. We risk a system clogged with vexatious or unfounded claims by legal gamesmanship—I say that as a lawyer—and by delay, which comes at a cost not only to the taxpayer but, more importantly, to those who truly do need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking, whom we have a moral duty to protect. I suggest to the Committee that Section 59 helps to ensure that that duty is fulfilled, not diluted, and that it prioritises principle, preserves the fairness of the system and promotes justice. For all those reasons, and despite my long-standing respect for the noble Lord, I am unable to support his amendment.

Amendment 192, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, does not target genuine refugees or close the door to those in real and urgent need who use safe and legal routes to come to the UK. It ensures that the law applies equally to all and that those who enter this country legally or who make claims from safe third countries are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those who enter clandestinely or via criminal routes. We cannot have a two-tier legal system: one for citizens and legal migrants and another for those who deliberately breach our laws and then ask for protection. We need to remember that this is not just damaging for us and our legal system; it is damaging and dangerous for the migrants themselves. It hands power to the criminal or gangs; it encourages risky and dangerous unlawful crossings; and it ensures that vulnerable people are drawn into a system that is harder, not easier, to navigate.

That ties in with Amendment 203J, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth and spoken to by him with his customary lucidity and compelling arguments. I note that it was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, at least tentatively, and he prayed in aid Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in the court case that he mentioned—two of Scotland’s most eminent jurists of the last 25 years. My noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Jackson of Peterborough and many others made excellent points about that amendment, which has a simple and sensible underlying premise: genuine asylum seekers should claim asylum when they get to a safe country. Travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK is an abuse of that system, and I therefore support that amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

What is the noble Lord’s answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we have no business interpreting the refugee convention on a domestic level and that it is a matter for the wide world that considers the convention?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. My answer is that it is our business and that we can devise an asylum and immigration system for this country—and that entitles us to make the points that not only my noble friend Lord Murray but the Conservative Party Front Bench have made throughout the Bill: that this is about achieving a system that deters illegal migration and yet allows those who are in real need to use safe and legal routes to come to the UK.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Taking the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I entirely understand the situation of somebody who has come over illegally and has no good reason to stay here, but, if that person comes from an unsafe country, where would you send him or her?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for making that point. I think my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth’s argument is that genuine asylum seekers have to claim asylum when they reach a safe country. The amendment is aimed at stopping travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

An Afghan soldier who served alongside our troops, to whom we have a duty, has no safe route to the UK now. Is the noble Lord suggesting that we should not support an asylum application if they arrived illegally—illegal only because the noble Lord’s Government made it so?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am supporting the premise that a genuine asylum seeker should claim asylum when they get to a safe country.

Amendment 193, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies, seeks to incorporate what I believe should be an entirely uncontroversial principle: if someone arrives in this country and needs sanctuary, they should say so, and without delay. This demand is the bare minimum of what a functioning immigration and asylum system should expect. I would argue that this amendment brings clarity and discipline to that expectation. It establishes a one-year window in which claims must be made and it ensures that claims brought beyond that point, without compelling reason, are not entertained.

I want to be very clear: that is a defence of genuine refugees. When our system is flooded with last-minute, opportunistic or tactical claims, it is those with genuine protection needs who suffer. Delays grow longer, the backlogs increase, and the resources stretch thinner. We owe it to those in real danger to ensure that the system works for them and not for those seeking to game it. The amendment is drawn from the new Canadian asylum and immigration rules, which also impose a one-year time limit for claiming asylum. The Home Secretary herself has acknowledged that this is an acute problem. As my noble friend Lord Davies said from this Dispatch Box yesterday, the Government have stated that they want to clamp down on students who come to the UK on a student visa and then claim asylum once they are in the UK, often at the end of their visa. The amendment would prevent that happening, since if a person came to the UK, studied for three years at university and then attempted to make an asylum claim, they would not be able to do so. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

Finally, Amendment 203E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of safe states in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I urge the House to consider very carefully the implications of such a move, not only for the integrity of our asylum system but for our bilateral relations, our immigration enforcement systems and the principle of credible, evidence-based policy. Let us begin with Albania—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sorry, because the noble Lord was obviously about to go through the list. Perhaps he could add France, because I have been wondering about our relationship with France if we were to pursue the route of insisting that any safe country through which an asylum seeker travels should be aware that he pursues asylum.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will continue to go through the list. Let us begin with Albania. The amendment proposes to strike from the list of safe countries a NATO member and a nation with which the United Kingdom has a formal bilateral returns agreement, signed in 2022, that has been a cornerstone of our efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised criminality. It allows for the swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK and ensures that genuine protection claims are still assessed on a case-by-case basis. According to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused. Why? It is because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning failed asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status, and co-operates with a range of international human rights mechanisms—

[Lord German (LD)]

Georgia has been suspended for reasons we just talked about to do with the way it treats people.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I still suggest that it co-operates with a range of human rights mechanisms.

India is the world’s largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner and a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitutional protections for minorities, an independent judiciary and regular multi-party elections.

To suggest that those countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound. Are there challenges in all societies? Yes, of course—that point was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. However, that is not the test, because the test under Section 80AA is whether “in general” the country poses a serious risk, so the statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise. A lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments, but the question that she has to ask herself is a general one: does that country in general pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, and would removal to those countries contravene our human rights obligations? I would suggest quite firmly that the test is not remotely met in the cases of Albania, Georgia or India.

Genuine refugees deserve our protection, and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims from nationals of safe democratic states. That is why we cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

105: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make arrangements for removal(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom if the person meets the following four conditions.(2) The first condition is that—(a) the person requires leave to enter the United Kingdom, but has entered the United Kingdom—(i) without leave to enter, or(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person,(b) the person has entered the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order,(c) the person has entered or arrived in the United Kingdom at a time when they were an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments) and—(i) subsection (5A) of that section (exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person, and(ii) an exception created under, or direction given by virtue of, section 15(4) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (power to create exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person,(d) the person requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, or(e) the person is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an electronic travel authorisation that is valid for that person’s journey to the United Kingdom, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without such an electronic travel authorisation.(3) The second condition is that the person entered or arrived in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) on or after the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The third condition is that, in entering or arriving as mentioned in subsection (2), the person did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) a person is not to be taken to have come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened as mentioned in that subsection if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.(6) The fourth condition is that the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it.(7) In this section—“country” includes territory;“deportation order” means an order under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971;“electronic travel authorisation” means an authorisation in electronic form to travel to the United Kingdom;“entry clearance” has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.(8) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. (9) Section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (person deemed not to enter the United Kingdom before disembarkation, while in controlled area or while under immigration control) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.(10) The only circumstances in which the duty in subsection (1) does not apply to a person who meets the four conditions in this section are where—(a) section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(1) applies to the person,(b) regulations under section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(7) apply to the person,(c) a Minister of the Crown has made a determination under section (Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights)(2) in relation to the person, or(d) section 61 or 62 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (victims of slavery and human trafficking) apply in relation to the person.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to amendments which seek to reinsert certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act that the Government are repealing with this Bill. The intention of these Benches is that the Government justify the repeal of each section of that Act.

Amendment 105 would reintroduce the duty on the Secretary of State to remove anyone from the UK who meets all of the following four conditions: they affected an unlawful, deceptive entry, including without a visa; they entered on or after this Bill becomes law; they did not come directly from a country where they were genuinely fleeing persecution; and they lack lawful immigration status. There are protections under this proposed new clause which recognise the specific needs of those who are unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking or those protected by European court measures. The clause sets out the clear duty of the Secretary of State to remove those who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be candid about why this amendment matters. Control over our borders is not just a political imperative; it is also a moral and democratic one. We all know that our asylum system is under intolerable strain. The public expect us to take action against those who break the rules, jump the queue and undermine the integrity of legal migration pathways. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to create an unambiguous legal duty to remove those who arrive illegally after this Bill comes into force, so that the message is clear that if you enter the UK unlawfully, you will not be allowed to stay.

This summer, as we have already heard, we have seen the strength of feeling that many in communities throughout the UK have towards the illegal migration crisis that this Government are presiding over. The problem is getting worse, and without serious action now it is going to get much worse. Dismantling the legal toolbox on this point seems to us on these Benches to be a poor decision.

Further, Amendment 109 seeks to reintroduce the process element of the Illegal Migration Act for removals. This proposed new clause would make it clear that removals must be made

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

to a person’s country of nationality, a country where they obtained a passport or identity document, a country they departed from to reach the UK, or a country that is willing to accept them. These provisions would apply only when the said country is deemed to be safe.

I suggest that the amendment would do something essential: it would reintroduce the clear legal framework for the removal of individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. It seeks to set a reasonable and practicable duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that removal takes place as soon as possible after arrival. In doing so, it sends out an unambiguous message that our Immigration Rules are not optional, and that entry into the UK without lawful status will carry consequences. We cannot have a situation where people are languishing here indefinitely at taxpayers’ expense.

At the same time, this proposed new clause is far from draconian. It is structured with carefully calibrated safeguards. It distinguishes between those from designated safe countries and those who may not be. It places clear limitations on the countries to which individuals can be removed. Where a protection or human rights claim is made, the amendment would ensure that no one is removed to a country unless it is formally listed and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual falls within a lawful category for removal. In short, the system would balance our obligations with the public expectation that illegal migration will be addressed seriously and systematically, and would provide clarity. It would avoid legal ambiguity, giving operational certainty to the Home Office, and would send a signal to the people-smugglers and traffickers alike that the UK will not be a soft target.

If this Government believe in deterrence, border security and preserving the capacity to protect the most vulnerable, this amendment embodies that balance. It would not slam the door shut but would set lawful parameters. It seeks to make it clear that the UK will not reward those who undermine our rules and ignore safe routes of migration. I beg to move.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I wonder if I could put to the noble Lord the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put, which he did not answer in the previous debate? The amendment would impose a requirement to deport, but to where? Where are they to go?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

110: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers to amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) to add a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, if satisfied that there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution.(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied 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, regulations under subsection (1) may add the country or territory or part to Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) in respect of that description of person.(3) A description for the purposes of subsection (2) may refer to—(a) sex,(b) language,(c) race, (d) religion,(e) nationality,(f) membership of a social or other group,(g) political opinion, or(h) any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(4) In deciding whether the statement in subsection (1) is true of a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, the Secretary of State—(a) must have regard to all the circumstances of the country or territory, or part (including its laws and how they are applied), and(b) must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations).(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) to omit a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, and the omission may—(a) be general, or(b) have the effect that the country or territory, or part, remains listed in Schedule (Countries and territories to which a person may be removed) in respect of a description of person.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to understand why the Government have decided to remove key parts of the legal architecture that we say provided a robust legal framework for dealing with this issue. Amendment 110 seeks to reintroduce an essential power from the Illegal Migration Act which enables the Secretary of State to update, through regulation, the list of countries to which individuals can be safely removed. These are countries that meet the test of presenting no serious risk of persecution in general. I repeat the point that I made earlier: the test is “in general”. The provisions in the amendment allow that list to evolve with circumstance, reflecting real-world developments, legal reforms and international assessments.

The capacity to have that list is a crucial part of the architecture of deterrence, because the only way we will stop people risking their lives to come here illegally is if they know with certainty that doing so will not result in a permanent right to stay. That means that swift and lawful removals to safe third countries must be a central pillar of our strategy. To achieve that, we need a legal framework that enables such removals to happen. That is what this clause does; it gives the Government flexibility to respond to changing global conditions and build bilateral or multilateral returns agreements on a lawful, transparent and evidence-based footing. Without that power, our capacity to remove inadmissible claimants is drastically reduced.

It is not about denying protection to the vulnerable. Proposed new subsection (4) rightly requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the legal, social and political context of any country before designating it as safe. It allows for targeted assessments—for example, recognising where certain groups might still face harm, even if others do not. As I have suggested, this is a balanced, evidence-led provision which allows us to remove those with no right to stay, while also upholding our obligations to those who genuinely need refuge. Amendment 120 works in conference with Amendment 110 and sets out the list of safe third countries to which I have already referred. To conclude, we cannot reduce illegal migration by making it easy to stay. We reduce it by making it clear, through law and through action, that illegal entry will not be rewarded. We hope the Government can set out why they have now abandoned that strategy.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I return to something I said in the earlier groups of amendments. The country that is at the heart of so much of this debate and previous debates is Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has introduced his amendments with customary coherence but, ultimately, I do not think he has thought through some of the countries he is talking about. He certainly has not responded to the points that were made earlier about Rwanda.

It is not just about Rwanda. The problem is that this is about generalities, and we are required by the obligations that we have entered into to get down to specifics. I shall give one illustration of what I mean by that from another example in this long list in Amendment 120—that is, the country of Nigeria. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report, referred to in earlier proceedings on this Bill, quotes the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as saying that,

“while designation of safe countries may be used as a procedural tool to prioritise or accelerate the examination of applications in carefully circumscribed situations”,

which is really what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was saying to us, and I do not think that there is conflict about that,

“it does not displace the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim”.

The UNHCR notes that the risk of refoulement in the absence of individualised assessments is unacceptable. I refer the noble Lord, if I may, as well as the Minister when he comes to respond, to paragraph 122 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report that deals with that.

The JCHR concluded that it shared the concerns of its predecessor committee—because this is not a new issue; it has been around for predecessor committees. I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, because she and I seem to have gone around this course many times over the past few years. It said:

“We share the concerns of our predecessor Committee that, whilst the states listed may be considered safe in general, this does not guarantee the safety of all individuals from these states, especially those who are members of particular social groups facing persecution. It must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution upon return to make a protection or human rights claim which must be considered on its merits in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government chooses to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, it should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe states, with a particular consideration of the rights of minority groups”.


Again, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, accepted that there would be regular review, but I would like him to respond further, when he comes to reply to the group of amendments, on how he looks at the position of minority groups in some of these countries. These are not just groups that are defined by issues such as ethnicity, religion, gender or orientation: it is also about what happens inside particular countries. A country such as Nigeria may be safe, and that is the example that I shall turn to in a moment, if you are in Lagos or Abuja, but it is not necessarily safe in Benue state or northern Nigeria—depending, again, on aspects of your background. How will that be dealt with in a list of this kind?

I have a dislike of these kinds of lists anyway, as a principle. I do not know that they help matters. We should look at every single case and country on the merits of the arguments. These are things that we should keep abreast of without having to draw up lists. I shall give a specific example of the dangers of this one-size-fits-all approach in what can be variable conditions, depending on many issues—everything from minority ethnicity or religion to gender or orientation. It is an issue that I raised in the debates on the Nationality and Borders Bill, when we were debating it on 8 February 2022, and again on Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, and I refer to Hansard of 5 July 2023.

I cited the case of Mubarak Bala, president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for so-called blasphemy committed on Facebook. Nigeria is one of 71 countries that criminalise blasphemy, and as long as those laws exist people will face persecution, prosecution and imprisonment. As I have said, some will even face the possibility of death and be pushed to find safe haven abroad. During those debates, I also raised the case of Usman Buda, a Muslim, who was murdered in Sokoto state in north-west Nigeria because it was alleged that he had blasphemed. I raised the case of the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel, a Christian, at Shehu Shagari College of Education, again following an unsubstantiated accusation of blasphemy.

Last year, I raised the plight in your Lordships’ House of Nigerian Christians in the northern and middle belt states and pointed out that some 82% of Christians killed for their faith in the previous year were in Nigeria—4,998 Christians were slaughtered, with 200 murdered during the Christmas services in 2023. The highly respected voluntary organisation and charity Open Doors reports that

“Christians in Nigeria continue to be terrorised with devastating impunity”

with

“abductions for ransom, sexual violence and death … leaving a trail of grief and trauma”.

I met Dominic and Margaret Attah, who were survivors of the Boko Haram Pentecost attack at St Francis Xavier Church in Owo, where 30 were murdered. Margaret’s legs had been blown off. She wanted to know why nobody had been brought to justice. I asked the then Minister, who told me in reply:

“We continue to call for those who committed this attack to be brought to justice and held to account”.


Needless to say, they have not been brought to account. Nor have the abductors of Leah Sharibu, who was abducted on 19 February 2018 by ISIS West Africa from the Government Girls Science and Technology College in Dapchi, Yobe State. Leah was told to convert; she refused, and was raped, impregnated and enslaved. She is still held captive. I promised her mother, Rebecca, who I showed around your Lordships’ House, that I would lose no opportunity to raise her case. I have done so on a number of occasions with Ministers.

When I see that this country is safe, according to the amendment, to send men back to, I wonder what will happen to these men if they come from a particular religious group or one that holds a set of views that are unacceptable, or a group that is defined by their sexual orientation. The Government’s travel advice contradicts the presumption that it is safe, particularly for gay men:

“Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Nigeria with penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Some northern states observe Sharia Law which can prescribe the death penalty for same-sex sexual activity … Same-sex relationships are generally viewed as socially unacceptable in Nigerian society. There is an increased risk of violence, attacks and threats, such as blackmail and intimidation against anyone being thought to be part of the LGBT+ community or supporting their rights”.


This advice is based on facts, not wishful thinking that adding Nigeria to this list will somehow make it a safe country. We have got to follow facts and evidence. Similarly, atheists face significant risks, including discrimination, marginalisation, ostracism, violence and, as I said, potentially death, particularly in the northern states. No differentiation is made in this list between different parts of the country. No distinction is made according to people’s minority status. It demonstrates the dangers of drawing up lists of this kind. I plead with the Official Opposition to give this further thought before we are perhaps asked to vote on this on Report, which I hope we will not be.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may raise a point which he has referred to but which has not been referred to in the debate, which is “part of a country”? Is it possible to be assured that if one is returning someone to a country where in one part there is a problem, that country—through its internal procedures—will not move somebody into that part?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am very happy to butt in and to say that was exactly the point I wanted to make. The noble Lord referred us to subsection (1) in the amendment and the phrase “in general”. That in itself needs to be fleshed out as to what it really means. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has asked the right question.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their interventions. “In general” is a well-known phrase; it is used in the 2002 Act and in this subsection. If one is to imagine a Secretary of State taking a decision, it has to be a generalised decision. It has to take into account a general view of whether that country, or part of that country, is safe.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I would say what the “part of a country” aspect allows the Secretary of State to do is to specify in the list—which is an evolving list—whether one part of the country is safe.

In light of everything that has been said—I am grateful for all the thoughtful contributions from across your Lordships’ House—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

There will be a sizeable number of people who cannot be returned. This amendment probes the impact of the changes brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act. Have the Government assessed the number of asylum seekers from Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan who have exhausted their rights of appeal? Will the Government be seeking to return these people? If so, are they seriously intending to return them to those countries? If it is not safe to do so, what will the Government do? That is the series of questions we have to ask on this matter. It is about looking at what is left behind by the actions of this Bill, and we have to examine the legislation we now fall back on. That is the reason for these probing amendments. I am sorry it has taken such a long time. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

121: Schedule 1, page 67, line 7, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes what amendments to the definition of “relevant matters” the Government might seek to make.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this is a busy group of, essentially, probing amendments around the subject of immigration advisers and immigration service providers. I shall do my best to be as brief as possible. There are a lot of probing amendments in this group. I hope the Minister can take this as an opportunity to address some of the questions that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I have raised through these amendments, although it may be—I cannot pre-empt him—that, as he undertook to do in relation to an earlier group of probing amendments, he chooses to do so in writing or tonight in the Chamber.

Amendment 121 seeks to probe the very broad powers in the Bill to amend the definition of what constitutes a “relevant matter” in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As it stands, the text appears to give the Government significant latitude to reinterpret or even redefine that term at will. I ask the Minister what sort of scope he envisages here: how far could this power reach and in what circumstances does he believe it would be necessary to use it? When legislation confers such a wide discretion, it is right that this House seeks clarity on both its limits and justification.

Amendment 122 seeks to understand why the Immigration Services Commissioner would need to give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice. This question is somewhat self-explanatory and I hope that the Minister can clarify it in his response.

Amendment 123 would in turn remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the amount charged in a variable penalty notice. Variation in the amount charged under such a notice should be clear, justified and open to scrutiny. As it stands, we are being asked to approve a power whose future use and financial impact is presently unknown. Parliament should have some assurance about how we will be kept informed of such changes. Will further variations be subject to debate or are we to accept them after the fact? If we achieve clarity now, I suggest that that would avoid disputes later. I hope, again, that the Minister can provide such clarity.

Amendment 124 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the tribunal backlogs on the operation of the monetary penalties that the Immigration Services Commissioner can impose. As with much of our discussion on the Bill, backlogs and delays are central to how effective any enforcement process will be. In the context of appeals, such delays can too often be exploited. Vexatious claims are lodged not with the aim of overturning a penalty but to take advantage of delays, which can prevent prohibitions from being enforced and allow those in breach to avoid consequences for longer than is reasonable. Therefore, we need to be mindful of the role backlogs play, not only as an administrative challenge but as a weakness in the system that can be deliberately abused. This amendment seeks to bring attention to that issue and assure transparency over the scale of that problem in the First-tier Tribunal. The scheme that we are creating here can work only if the appeals process is not allowed to become a flaw in its design.

Amendment 125 is in a similar spirit to Amendment 123 in that it seeks to incorporate greater oversight into the use of the powers granted to the Government to specify fees and amounts. Oversight allows us to do our job as the Opposition properly, namely in holding the Government to account and checking that what is being done is both right and effective. We need this to be built into the legislation as much as possible if it is to work. Again, I hope the Minister can tell us how he will ensure that this happens.

Briefly, Amendments 128 and 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, require little commentary from us as it is a question put directly to the Minister. But I add that it tangentially speaks to the point that we on these Benches are making about proportionality and oversight. Clarity from the Minister on these points would be welcome. Amendment 130 is consequential to the amendment to Schedule 1, page 78, line 9.

To conclude, at its heart this group is about asking questions and probing the Government—one of the most important functions of this House—and any clarity that the Minister can provide will be welcome in order to ensure that there is proper oversight of the powers of the Bill, that proportionality is built into its operation and that the system it creates is both effective and ready to function from day one. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us of that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 121 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there are particular statutory provisions on additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals, and it is those that I understand the noble Baroness is seeking to amplify.

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

138: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Automatic deportation: Appeals(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who has been given a deportation order in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) P may not appeal against the deportation order but may only appeal against their conviction in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (3) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).(4) In section 32, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”.(5) In section 34(2) omit “or sentence”.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 138 and 139 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Together, they go to the heart of what it means to have a fair, firm and trusted asylum and immigration system that both commands the confidence of the British people and respects their good will.

We should start from first principles. The people of this country are generous, compassionate and welcoming. That generosity has been demonstrated towards those migrating to the UK over the centuries and has especially been seen more recently in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, through which ordinary families across the UK opened their doors, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which have offered refuge to those who stood by our Armed Forces. This reflects a profound national instinct to offer sanctuary to those in genuine need fleeing persecution and violence, and to do so with humanity and dignity.

However, that good will is not unlimited, nor should it be exploited. When we ask the British people to assent to immigration policy, we are not legislating in the abstract. We are in effect asking our fellow citizens to share their homes and their services with those arriving on our shores. That is a profound act of trust, and it is our duty in this place to protect that trust. That is why I suggest that these amendments matter: they draw a clear and important distinction between those who come here in need of our support and behave with gratitude and decency, and those who come here and break our criminal law and expect to remain regardless.

I turn to the detail of the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies. Amendment 139 would provide that any person who was not a British citizen and was convicted of a crime while in the UK would be automatically deported. Furthermore, where a non-British citizen over the age of 17 was convicted of an offence, the court would have to order deportation when sentencing. That would bring absolute clarity: if you break the law, you forfeit the right to remain. It would also ensure that those who committed immigration offences, such as entering or remaining unlawfully, were dealt with firmly and consistently.

Amendment 138 deals specifically with automatic deportation orders. These were introduced to the immigration system by the previous Labour Government in the UK Borders Act 2007. They state that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in cases of conviction where 12 months’ imprisonment is applied and an offence is specified. My amendment seeks to prevent the possibility of constant and lengthy appeals by removing the ability of foreign offenders to frustrate an automatic deportation order through a lengthy appeal mechanism. It provides that, if a deportation order is made, it is final and can be neither appealed nor overturned by a higher court. That would not, of course, affect the right to appeal the criminal conviction, which would remain, but the automatic deportation order could not be overturned.

We cannot justify to the British people a system in which convicted criminals linger here for years during protracted appeal proceedings. These amendments are not directed against those who genuinely need our protection—those fleeing war, persecution and danger—but against those who exploit our generosity, take advantage of our systems and commit crimes against the very society that has given them shelter.

Finally, I lend a word of support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have no wish to steal his thunder, so will be as brief as I can. I support the amendment, which would ensure that deportation orders follow swiftly within seven days of release and cannot be endlessly delayed or appealed. That clarity is essential both for the integrity of the system and for the public’s trust in it.

These amendments draw a firm line, restore public trust and reaffirm the principle that compassion must be matched by responsibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 203A in my name and to contribute to the wider deliberations of the Committee. It almost feels as if this Bill is from a different era. The speed of change of government policy on immigration following the publication of the immigration White Paper and various other political developments has left us somewhat flat-footed.

Foreign national offenders remain an endemic issue, which the previous Government, in all fairness, failed to tackle as effectively as they could have. It is apposite that just today the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 is being considered by the Grand Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has opined on that statutory instrument in its 31st report. I will not bore the Committee with the details.

Foreign national offenders cost roughly £54,000 each. They cost £500 million a year and, as of 25 June, there were 10,772 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. They represent 12.5% of the prison population. Disproportionate groups are Albanians, Poles, Romanians, Jamaicans and Irish citizens.

I welcome the Government’s new focus on this area. It is fair to say that they have made some progress. Up to August 2025, they had removed around 5,000 of these individuals. Nevertheless, the number of foreign national offenders is still extremely high compared with just six years ago. Since 2019, there has been a 16.8% rise in foreign national offenders in the prison estate. It was not always the case that we were struggling to remove them. In 2016, the previous Government removed 6,437. In 2017 the figure was 6,292 and in 2018 it was 5,500. Believe it or not, over 12,000 were removed in 2012. The previous Government secured a prisoner transfer agreement with Albania in May 2023.

Regarding some of the legal impediments to the removal of foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences, the German Government—no doubt we will come back to this issue in future—derogated from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically to prevent vexatious and spurious claims against deportation by, in particular, persistent Albanian career criminals. I wonder why the UK Government have not sought to pursue a similar policy, but I am obviously glad that they are looking at it in their review of Article 8. Every time the Minister speaks on this, he sounds a bit more robust in his interpretation, which I am hopeful about.

One-third of foreign national offenders are citizens of the European Union. They should be removed on the basis of public policy, public health and public safety and security, available under the free movement regulations and, post Brexit, Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

I am interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the Chamber, as I do not know what the statutory basis for this is, but why do we not remove the many hundreds of Irish prisoners in our estate? It seems to be a “convention” that we do not. As she would no doubt agree, surely we can ask the Irish to take back their own prisoners as a quid pro quo for the defence support we consistently give to them. The previous Government paid £25 million to the Government of Jamaica to construct a prison in Kingston as part of a quid pro quo for the removal of several thousand Jamaican prisoners in our estate. It seems that we have not expedited that positive outcome. Can the Minister update us on any new prisoner transfer agreement that is likely to come to fruition on top of the one signed in October 2023 with the Philippines? I know that there is ongoing work with the Government of Italy in this respect as well. Maybe he can say how many prisoners claim asylum, or are likely to claim asylum, at the point that they are due to be released or deported.

The reason why we need this amendment and a statutory duty as an imperative in law is that Ministers are bedevilled not just by judicial activism and the misuse of Article 8 of the ECHR by some judges in the Upper Tribunal, as consistently exposed by the Daily Telegraph, but by a fundamental and chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have 12,000 criminals mooted for deportation at large in our communities, an increase of 192% since 2012. Yet we have the legal powers to act decisively under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. I applaud the Government for their early removal scheme changes and efforts to secure new prisoner transfer agreements. I think we all agree with that, but we need better and more up-to-date data and communications between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need better reporting performance at the foreign national offenders returns command and a review of case working. We need to stop the use of manually accessed spreadsheets, tackle poor IT provision and improve case ownership, case management, accountability and timelines.

--- Later in debate ---

I have tried to answer the points that have been made by noble Lords. I suspect that we will return to some of these issues on Report. We certainly will if the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, re-table their amendments. In the meantime, I would welcome them withdrawing or not moving their amendments, and them considering what has been said.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whom I congratulate on showing his survival instincts over the weekend. I do not shy away from the absolute nature of these amendments. Having listened carefully to what has been said, I intended to withdraw or not move them, but I make just one point, which was also made by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The rationale of these amendments lies in building a fair, trusted and enduring immigration system that requires us to carry the British people with us. Protecting that good will must be a matter of utmost importance. The danger is that the good will that currently exists is dissipating very quickly. Foreign national offenders are at the epicentre of that and public confidence in our system can never be taken for granted.

However, in the light of what has been said, and reflecting on everything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 138 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord is correct. If the Home Office recognises it has made a mistake, then it should apply the protections which are provided by the withdrawal agreement, which is precisely the major point that is being made in this set of amendments. Amendment 144 would ensure that all actions related to EUSS status are subject to clear procedural safeguards, as laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

Taken together, these amendments reinforce fairness and legal certainty for EUSS beneficiaries, ensuring that administrative decisions respect individual rights and that the procedural safeguards are consistently applied.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for reminding us that our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been injured. We wish him a speedy recovery. He plays such an important part in our debates.

When I have talked to people claiming asylum in this country, they have had two main wishes: either they want to complete their education, which has been damaged through difficult journeys here and dangers in the countries they have fled from, or they want to work. They want to work because it is the right thing to do; they want to contribute to our society. There is this idea that they want to benefit from benefits but, frankly, I have never heard that. I am quite convinced that when they say they want to work and contribute to this country, they are telling the truth.

Then there is the argument about pull factors. I have heard that argument used about every single group of people we might be talking about. When I was discussing child refugees many years ago, I was told that if those children come, others will follow. It is the argument that Governments have used since the beginning of time, and I am just not convinced by it. There are much stronger arguments the other way.

The point about other EU countries is important. If our labour market is such that people want to come here, why is it that other EU countries which allow people to work do not appear to have a pull factor? I think we should get in line with other countries instead of being different.

The noble Lord talked about people being willing to work for lower wages. Yes, but I think that is regrettable. I believe and have argued before that it is up to the trade unions as much as anybody else to ensure that people do not work below the proper wage level for the industry they are in. It is difficult. I know that today may not be the best day to argue the case for trade unions, but I believe that it is important that people do not undercut wages. It should be done by strength and unity at the workplace.

Finally, I am interested in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about ID cards. It is becoming higher up on the agenda and we shall all have to consider it very hard indeed. I agree with all the amendments, apart from Amendment 154A. The denial of the right to work has been so fundamental for many years; for heaven’s sake, let us deal with it sensibly.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord German, in sending good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I wish them both a speedy recovery. They have played a very full part in debates on this Bill and, although they are not often on the same page as the Opposition, I have always welcomed their incisive arguments.

The amendments in this group are primarily concerned with granting asylum seekers the right to work, after various timeframes have elapsed, much more quickly than is currently permitted. The position of those of us on these Benches is clear and already well known. It has not changed and therefore I will not detain the House for too long, only to say that we believe that the current system, which allows those who have been waiting for a year or longer for a decision to apply for permission to work, is sufficient.

We are also clear that, if we were to allow a looser approach to those in the asylum process being allowed to work, it would create a clear incentive for people to come to the UK illegally. That is self-evident and will encourage even more people to endanger their lives and the lives of others in crossing the channel and the money will ultimately just flow back into the pockets of the people smugglers. It will encourage people to come and often to work illegally.

I note that the previous Home Secretary, who recently moved on, said that:

“Illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime”.


Therefore, for those reasons, despite a fascinating and wide-ranging debate—I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, talk about his experience—I am afraid that these Benches will not support those amendments that seek to permit this sort of working.

I move on to the final amendments in this group, which relate to the fishing industry, brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. They raise some very interesting questions and I welcome them to that extent. As someone who represented the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for eight years in the Scottish Parliament, I am very alive to the issues in the workplace in the fishing industry, particularly among people from abroad working in very difficult conditions on boats for periods of time. We must do everything possible to stamp out exploitation in the workplace and in sectors such as fishing where vulnerable people can so easily be taken advantage of.

No one in this Chamber would want to see labour abuse tolerated. Where there is criminality, it must be cracked down on swiftly and decisively. I have one caveat about these amendments. This worthy objective cannot come at the expense of somehow opening up a sort of back-door route, if I can put it like that, for those who come to this country illegally to remain here. That would risk undermining confidence in the system.

We need a balanced approach—one that ensures workers are protected from abuse but preserves the integrity of our border and Immigration Rules. To do that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks, we have to understand the true scale of the problem and what practical steps can be taken to address it. These amendments are directed towards discovering and learning more about this. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide some clarity on how the Government will tackle this labour exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.

This amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.

When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.

Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent White Paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.

Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.

BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.

Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.

This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the Front Bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.

There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.

More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.

Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.

This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.

I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.

This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.

In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

3: Clause 13, page 7, line 8, after “supply” insert “or has in their possession with intent to supply”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the evidence coming out in our debate today is that there are a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. Last weekend, I met a group of local authority leaders who told me about a situation last November, regarding unaccompanied children who had been kept in hotels and were coming out into their care. I asked whether it had improved, and they said that the numbers may have changed but there were still examples of young people who had been taken out of the system because they had been wrongly assessed. The current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum remains deeply flawed. I think there are not many who would accept that it is all working really well.

We already have some indication that the cohort of people being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected rapidly upon entry by Border Force officials. As we know from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, appearance, demeanour and physical development are all affected by environment, life experiences and ethnicity, and making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.

In answer to the point that there will be some people who will play the system, we need to understand that, when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children. That risks them being placed in adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. That is a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children. We have already seen cases where individuals who raised that their age was under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand, or a conviction on immigration offences.

The stakes in this Bill are extremely high, with the new offences related to immigration crime contained within it carrying substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years. It is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.

I know that the Government have started to look carefully at these issues, as we had this discussion during Committee. The Government said that there were concerns about how such an amendment would operate in practice, mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, and that it would potentially frustrate the removals process and add to asylum backlogs. But at that time the Minister gave assurances, as he will know, that existing safeguards are in place. He named three: that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts; that the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age-dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest; and that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard, whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as “significantly over 18” who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges. However, these assurances do not go far enough when a child’s liberty and future are at stake.

First, relying on the CPS’s prosecutorial discretion and the court’s ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient, when we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings. The risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point—before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law. This amendment would require a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically.

On Amendment 57, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, we need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and the key people within them but those who have expertise in this area. It is a difficult area, and we therefore need to bring together all that expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention.

The Government are right to focus on improving the robustness of the process. That includes looking at what the NAAB does, how it operates and whether it is up to the job of doing the things that we have been talking about in this debate. Facial age estimation technology is almost a case of saying, “We may have that possibility in the future”, but, as with anything—such as if we were trying to tackle new drugs or give new treatments to people—we should not do it without sound advice that it is in order and would produce the right results. The question must remain open on that matter, and I am sure the Minister will know that the exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard. It would ensure that expert, child-focused social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system as an adult. We know that this amendment has been supported by organisations across the children’s sector. It would ensure that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts before any prosecution can proceed. We support the intention of Amendment 57, also in this group. There are very serious matters here that I hope the Minister will address.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.

The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.

It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

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

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her Amendment 57, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 27, which has stimulated a discussion. I am grateful for the letter that I received today from my noble friend Lady Longfield, in which she asked me to support my noble friend Lady Lister’s Amendment 57. We have had a number of contributions, and I will try to refer to the issues that have been raised. I was grateful for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to discuss these amendments. I do not think my noble friend Lady Lister was present—I have had so many meetings that I lose track.

There is general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work and that no single combination of assessment techniques is able to determine chronological age with precision: Members from all sides of the House have raised that issue. The Government take it extremely seriously and the amendments are right to press the Government on the issues we have raised. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on the difficulty, sometimes, of age assessments, and this is self-evidently a difficult area for us to examine in detail.

I will mention the report from the independent borders inspectorate. It is important to say at the start of this discussion that the Government accepted all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Lady Lister, among others, referred to that. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I hope that, throughout this, Members of the House will recognise that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.

Amendment 57 seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the Bill. The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a “significantly over 18” policy from 18 to 21, with written reasons, and would put this on to a statutory footing. Initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age and two Home Office staff members independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over the age of 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court and held to be lawful.

The Government believe that “significantly over 18” is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks by putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised this. This is extremely important because, obviously, if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and is not, that presents safeguarding risks—and vice versa: if an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it is extremely important that we examine this individual point in some detail.

The important question of data has been raised, and I gave assurances in our meeting with the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that we are collecting data and that the Government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026. We have developments now representing a significant advancement in technical infrastructure, enabling the more accurate and consistent recording of key activities. Therefore, the up-to-date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is under way to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. I hope that addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have that data very shortly and I hope we can publish it.

There has been significant discussion—the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made reference to this—of the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on this subject issued by my colleague the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed currently being explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process.

To go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned, with the intention of developing this technology further in late 2026. The results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we have undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving, as evidenced in the emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which shows that the potential is there for this to be of assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

34: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Offences and deportation(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection (2) and (3).(2) For section 3(6) substitute—“(6) Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom.(6ZA) Subsection (6) applies to a person who—(a) is not a British citizen, and(b) who is over the age of seventeen.”(3) In section 24—(a) for subsection (F1) substitute—“(F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable on conviction on indictment to removal from the United Kingdom.”,(b) after subsection (F1) insert—“(F2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the deportation of any person convicted of an offence under subsections (A1) to (E1).”, and(c) in subsections (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1), (E1) and (1) omit instances of “knowingly”.(4) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).(5) In section 32—(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;(b) in subsection (1)(b) for "and” substitute “or”;(c) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”; and(d) omit subsections (2) and (3).(6) In section 33, omit subsections (2), (3) and (6A).(7) In section 38—(a) omit subsection (1),(b) in subsection (2)(a) for “does not include” substitute “includes”, and(c) in subsection (4) omit paragraphs (b) and (d).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in this country, who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Enaze, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year-old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail, but the sentence was suspended for 24 months. Consequently, he will be spared jail time and, under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation.

Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 as it stands permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but is not specified under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported. This is obviously wrong. This is a man seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK who is being housed at the taxpayers’ expense. He is a convicted paedophile and yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country.

The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would change that. Amendment 34 would ensure that, where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. First, it proposes an alteration to Sections 3 and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would change the current discretion in Section 3 for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to Section 24 would ensure that, where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person’s removal.

Secondly, my amendment would amend Sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign-national offenders—that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign-national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. We know that this Government have released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences. Their Sentencing Bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year. The Government claim this is necessary due to prison capacity. Of course, if the Government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign-national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces.

The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen. Even after the Government bring in changes to the early removal scheme via Clause 32 of the Sentencing Bill, a significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign-national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. Amendment 72 tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson would ensure that they were given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support.

Where this Government have acted, we will support them. They have increased the rates of removal for foreign-national offenders, and that is welcome, but it is not enough. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support Amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.

The amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility of and duty on the Government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here and who have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If you come to this country and make it your home, you must understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. The amendment would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public safety of the British people.

The increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021 and 2024 was three times greater than that of British nationals, at 19.4% compared to 5.9%. In 2024, there were 20,866 non-summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate, as my noble friend said. Albanians take up over 1,000 prison places. To my knowledge, they have been part of neither the British Empire nor the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union. Therefore, why is this the case and what are Ministers doing about it?

At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders released and not deported rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The Government need to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove new offenders who present themselves.

This Government can blame only themselves, in all honesty, for this crisis, for which they have no solutions. Their cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and their activist so-called jurists have facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as by some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers.

The necessity of this amendment—the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing—has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released and then deported only after he was recaptured. He was then paid £500 so that he would not try to challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers’ money in case he tried to claim asylum. The Government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely without causing a disturbance is the only way forward. That is not the best course of action. An individual who has been convicted and has served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.

On a wider question, could the Minister advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan states, and the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago, on 8 September? On that date, the Minister stated:

“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 … 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”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1164.]


I ask the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation?

I concede that the Government have moved in a positive direction. Around 5,100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which, to their credit, is more than the just under 4,000 deported under the previous Government. That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily.

I spoke in Committee about a

“chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1157.]

That mismanagement has now been brought to public attention. In the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and that is what this amendment brings.

I agree that my own party’s record was suboptimal, but this Government have had 16 months to develop—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the Government made in the general election, including the establishment of a Border Security Commander. Going back, for example, to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned about Albania, that Border Security Commander has established a Balkans task force dealing with a whole range of issues there to tighten up our performance with countries such as Albania. This Bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been around a long time. He knows that the Government have processes to follow and legislation to bring forward.

I am saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined: detailed reforms on ensuring that our laws are upheld; simplifying the rules on processing for removal of foreign national offenders; and strengthening public interest tests under Article 8. That is going to happen in very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a Government. Actually, if I go back to the point that the noble Lord mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign national offenders removed from this country by 14%, so it is an absolutely important matter that we have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me an important question, and I just want to give her a response on this. Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunities set out in a particular part of the Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had before Brexit cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit.

The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon and Ors v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s application, JR295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.

Bluntly, the bottom line is: when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised today to give greater support and clarification. But I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very spirited. I listened very carefully, especially to the Minister, who has unfortunately not accepted Amendment 34. We stand by this amendment: there are far too many foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences and who will not be deported if we allow the law to remain as it is. My noble friend Lord Deben and others are absolutely right: this is of huge concern across the United Kingdom. The Government’s plans do not go far enough. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

35A: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to deport illegal arrivals(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person (“P”) to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to any person who—(a) commits an offence under section 24 (illegal entry) or 24A (deception) of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) enters or arrives in the United Kingdom at a time when they are an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments), or(c) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected,on, after or before the day on which this section comes into force.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the exceptions in subsection (5A) of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (exceptions to section 8B) do not apply.(4) Where P has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully by means of sea crossing, a deportation order must be made against P as soon as P is detained under section (powers of detention for illegal entrants).(5) Where P is given a deportation order under this section the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangements for the removal of P from the United Kingdom so as to ensure that P is removed from the United Kingdom within the period of one week beginning on the day that P is detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants).(6) Where a deportation order is in force against P under this section, the Secretary of State must give directions for P’s removal to either—(a) a country of which P is a national or citizen providing that country is a safe country, or(b) where a country of which P is a national or citizen is an unsafe country, to a safe third country.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) A “safe third country” means a country of which P is not a national or citizen but is considered to be a safe country under this subsection.(8) Where—(a) a deportation order is in force against P under this section, and(b) P has a child (“C”) who was born in the United Kingdom after P entered the United Kingdom unlawfully,the Secretary of State must also make a deportation order against C.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to deport, within one week, any person who entered the United Kingdom illegally or who has had their asylum claim rejected.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin this group of amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, by stating that they are directed at illegal entrants and not genuine refugees whose claims are upheld or who enter by legal routes.

We began Report with a discussion about the Government’s new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who, during an evidence session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, said:

“What we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing, there is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else”.


The Government’s own Border Security Commander himself recognises that there need to be changes to reduce the pull factors and create a deterrent effect. This year alone there have been 36,954 small boat arrivals. We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The Government have argued that their new “one in, one out” deal with France will take up that mantle, but all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working. It is not deterring illegal entry and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally.

These amendments would achieve the aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as with the other amendments we have tabled to the Bill, which will be discussed in later groups. The arguments in support of these amendments were well ventilated in Committee. Amendment 35A proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under Sections 24 or 24A of the 1971 Act, is an excluded person under Section 8B of that Act, or who has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35B is a corollary to that. It contains the power of detention and, accordingly, mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person. That person would be detained in a removals centre or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary’s behalf and the person must then be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention.

When people cross the border unlawfully, claim asylum and then remain in limbo, it undermines the integrity of our system. Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly question whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat that these amendments are not about genuine refugees but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants—illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected—and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

35B: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of detention for illegal entrants(1) A person to whom this section applies (“P”) must be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State or the authority of an immigration officer for the purposes of P’s removal from the United Kingdom.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 (“A”), or(b) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected (“B”).(3) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained in a designated removal centre and may not be accommodated in any other form of accommodation.(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in subsection (3) to “any other form of accommodation” includes hotel accommodation, houses in multiple occupation and military bases. (5) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained for the relevant period.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” begins—(a) for A, on the day on which the person unlawfully enters the United Kingdom;(b) for B, the day on which the claim is rejected.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” ends on the earliest of the following—(a) for A, on A’s deportation from the United Kingdom;(b) for B, on B’s deportation from the United Kingdom.(8) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail) does not apply to a person detained under this section.(9) Section 141 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (fingerprinting) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).(10) In subsection (7), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any person (“DA”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025;”.(11) In subsection (8), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) for D or DA, on D’s or DA’s detention or arrest;”.(12) In subsection (9), in paragraph (b), for “or D,” substitute “,D or DA,”.(13) Regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are amended as follows.(14) In paragraph (7)—(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g)(ii), at the end insert “; and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) any person (“H”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(15) In paragraph (11) –(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g), at the end insert “;and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) for H, on H’s detention.”(16) In paragraph (12), after sub-paragraph (b), insert—“(c) for H, on H’s deportation from the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require any person that enters the United Kingdom illegally or has had their asylum claim rejected to be immediately detained in a removals centre, not a hotel or HMO, have biometric information collected, and then be deported within one week.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

On that basis, I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will comment favourably on this scheme, which is meant to help reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we unfortunately cannot support her amendment. This past year has seen the largest number of boat crossings since records began. We believe that the current Government are buckling under the numbers. It is a situation that calls for measures that disincentivise those considering making the dangerous crossing across the channel. It is not an answer to strengthen the incentives to come here and then wonder why there is more inflow and more of a public backlash—that would be the outcome of Amendment 37.

If we were to increase the periods of financial and accommodation eligibility, we would give migrants a significantly greater reason to come here, and the taxpayer would be burdened with an even greater bill. In fact, we know from reports last week that the asylum seeker deported from France under the Government’s “one in, one out” policy returned because he could not get housing in France. The only group of people that the amendment would benefit would be people smugglers, who make a living by trafficking humans and breaking our laws. Instead, we should take the opposite approach. If we want to stop the tragic deaths in the channel and ease public sentiment towards the asylum system, we should disincentivise those illegally arriving here.

We understand and acknowledge the sentiment behind Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, on Nightingale processing units, but at present cannot support that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.

I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.

Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.

The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.

As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.

It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.

In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right

“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”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.

In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his amendment and for his submission today, which I listened to carefully, on the case for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, the general issues of which we explored in Committee. That said, I regret that we cannot support his amendment—I do not think that will come as a massive surprise to him—because it would, in our view, weaken the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous Government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims. Consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord’s attempt to downgrade the duty under Section 80A to a power that “may”, rather than “must”, be exercised by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that my name is attached to this amendment, and I feel very strongly that the House should accept it.

I will not spend time talking about the issues that were raised in Committee: that it is a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, it is very costly, and people may not be able to use their valuable money in order to clarify whether they are part of an exception. We are also an outlier: I listed all the 33 countries—all the big ones in Europe—and nobody else does this. Then there is the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which has been so adequately put on the agenda by the right reverend Prelate.

I draw attention in particular to what will happen if the Government’s policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey, and it may be that that is where the Government want them to stop—to be people in this country who have only indefinite right to remain. But there are other parties—one of them sitting on my right-hand side here and one of them with a very small representation in the other place—which have a Bill before this Parliament, from the shadow Home Secretary, saying that people’s indefinite right to remain will be removed. So, at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, who currently have the right to remain in this country and will be given it, will suddenly have that stripped away, according to the Bill before the House of Commons.

The danger then, of course, is this. If the journey to getting citizenship in this country is 10 years—which is what the Government are proposing; it could be somewhat longer than that—and you come as a single person, marry somebody from this country, have children and send them to school, at the end of it all another Government might well say, “Thank you very much. You’re an outlier—you’ll have to go back”, and we would expel them from this country.

Just imagine what the consequence of that policy would be if carried through. This measure started in February this year. We are not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate time, because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it in the ways that we have heard from two Members of this House so powerfully today and to build up that good character. To do that, you then have to seek citizenship so that you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you will be judged on, but the Government propose to make that judgment right at the beginning, from February. So, people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees and may be granted the right to remain, and they may even be granted the indefinite right to remain, but there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment, who would then say, “No, you cannot become a citizen, and if you’ve got indefinite leave to remain you will lose that right”, after many years.

I ask Members of this House, when they consider this matter, to think of it in the longer term as well as the shorter term. There will be amazing consequences from this right down the track. We are not expecting people who have come here since February to suddenly get citizenship. They have to prove the right to be in this country and that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. It does not take much for us to look around this country and see people who have done just that. We are in danger of splitting up families, splitting up husbands and wives from each other, and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile Government in place in this country. I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about the consequences of not supporting this important amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.

However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.

Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.

Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.

Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.

I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.

For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.

The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the Opposition want to come in on this, but I may as well jump in. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Her amendment is simplified from her one in Committee. She is quite right that this Government ought to wish to stick to Article 31 of the refugee convention. That is what they maintained over the last few years, and it would be sensible and right to come back to that position. As she said, we can rely on the common law position, which I think was contributed to by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and rely on the court to understand what “directly” means. It can sometimes include short stops in transit— I think we can all understand why that might be—but it is a question of assessment in any individual situation. It is important to go back to the refugee convention definition and understanding for reasons of fairness and justice.

In the closing part of her remarks, the noble Baroness picked up on something that I was keen to ask the Minister. She repeated the statistics that she gave us in Committee: 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted, and the vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum. In her remarks just now, she added that a lot of these people who were prosecuted had refugee status. I wonder: what is the point of adding new pressure on the criminal justice system, particularly in the light of all the demands on it that we heard about in this House yesterday? It cannot cope. Surely the important thing is to get on with assessing someone’s claim so that you can decide whether they have a valid refugee or other humanitarian claim and are allowed to stay—or not, in which case they ought to be deported. What is the point of wasting time, resources and energy, and putting people who may well get refugee status through that process, when you go on to grant them refugee status anyway? What is the point of the diversion? I have never understood this, to be perfectly honest.

The noble Baroness is offering a way to get back to a sensible position. Of course people who are guilty of smuggling and trafficking offences might still get caught by this, but we have a baroque arrangement at the moment. We need to cleave to the refugee convention, which has been the traditional position of the Labour Party in opposition—and ought to be in government—and not waste resources, time and everything else in prosecuting people instead of just getting on with the asylum determination and removing those who have no claim. The present situation does not make any sense, in justice or in practicality. I hope the Minister can give a positive response to the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.

Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.

This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.

This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.

The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.

The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.

The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.

Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

78: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Rights of Chagossians(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom may not be altered or amended in any way.(2) In this section—“the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom” means any visa, indefinite leave to remain or immigration status, with respect to the United Kingdom, granted to a Chagossian or the descendant of a Chagossian;“Chagossian” means a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the person’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that any change in the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory would not change the UK immigration rights of Chagossians.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community, notwithstanding any agreement the Government may make with Mauritius. This is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments made in this House and the other place regarding the Diego Garcia military base Bill, but I thank the Government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that Bill until the new year, following calls from these Benches for additional time for further scrutiny. We fundamentally disagree with the Government’s agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen.

This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status they deserve, and I urge the Government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment because it would protect the rights of Chagossians. After the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any Chagossian who has claimed BOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry into force. If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territories citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until the treaty enters into force. That is the issue about which we need an explanation. That protection of rights ends when the treaty comes into force.

I remind the House that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers. The summary of the evidence received was as follows:

“We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement”.


With that knowledge, it is important that we secure the rights of Chagossians—not just resettlement in the Chagos islands themselves, but that the status the United Kingdom has given them is protected.

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

My Lords, Amendment 78 aims to prevent changes to the UK immigration status held by Chagossians and their descendants, regardless of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under UK law, as noble Lords noted, Chagossians and their descendants are either automatically British citizens or have a right to apply to be registered as British citizens. As British citizens, they are free to make their home in the UK without being subject to immigration control.

The Government have been very clear that the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will protect British nationality rights, so I give the noble Lord, Lord German, that assurance. The treaty and the Bill make no changes to the citizenship that Chagossians currently hold or to their right to claim British citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, this is being debated in respect of other legislation. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK should they wish to. The immigration status of Chagossians living in the UK who do not wish to take up British citizenship will not be impacted by the agreement between the UK and Mauritius.

In the Government’s view, this amendment is therefore unnecessary and would prevent the UK Government exercising their lawful power to amend or alter the immigration status of those subject to immigration control in the UK—for example, if the basis upon which someone’s immigration status was granted changes, or, as we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, if an individual is convicted of a criminal offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Furthermore—this is the salient point—the amendment would also effectively prevent Chagossians applying to amend their immigration status and prevent them exercising their right to apply for British citizenship, should they so choose. I therefore ask the noble Lord, in the light of my comments and the assurance I have given, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons outlined.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful, especially to the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support for this amendment. I am delighted finally to be on the same page as him on this Bill, after many days of Committee and Report. He made a compelling argument for the basis of this amendment, and it is a topical question. In our view, it is an opportunity to do right by the Chagossians and give them the statutory certainty they deserve, but in the light of what has just been said by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Overall—I do not want to go on anymore—I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and I congratulate her on her persistence in pursuing this very important subject. It is important for the asylum applicant to be able to be understood, and it is important for the taxpayer to make sure that we have efficient processes that do not run on because of defects due to lack of understanding. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, as much as I thank the Minister.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I want to draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here. All the evidence seems to be addressed to the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England, and for those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us.

Debating an English-only issue in a Bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom is worrisome, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns. The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. The Minister told us in earlier debate on this matter that no judgment is taken on cohorts of people; it is solely on the merits of a case.

The objective of the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return. Although transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision-making.

We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help—the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. Based on the principles of individual justice and effective resource management, we reject these amendments.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for Amendments 79C and 79D. Both amendments are proportionate and consistent with the principles that underpin the Bill; namely, that our asylum and immigration system should be firm, fair and founded on clear evidence.

There is a common theme that has run through a number of amendments tabled by these Benches in this Bill and that is transparency. If we are to build and sustain confidence in how this country handles claims for asylum, and particularly those made on sensitive grounds such as modern slavery or religious persecution, we must ensure the facts are available and that Parliament can see them clearly set out. Without good data, good policy is impossible.

Amendment 79C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how many individuals identified through the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery go on to receive asylum or refugee status. This is a vital area of public concern. The link between the asylum system and modern slavery referrals has grown significantly in recent years, and questions have been raised about whether that system is being exploited by those seeking to frustrate legitimate removal or immigration control processes.

An annual report as proposed would shine a light on the outcome of modern slavery referrals, who is granted asylum, on what grounds, and through which routes they arrived. It is about evidence-based policy-making, and it would strengthen, not weaken, our collective efforts against the crime of modern slavery.

Amendment 79D addresses another area that demands careful scrutiny: asylum claims based on religion—in particular, cases where an individual has converted to a new faith after arrival in the United Kingdom. Again, this is a matter that touches on deeply held convictions and our tradition of religious liberty, but it is also an area where the integrity of the system must be beyond reproach. Legitimate concerns have been expressed in this House and beyond about the authenticity of some claimed conversions—for example those said to have been made to Christianity—and the consistency of decision-making in those cases. I simply suggest that we cannot be squeamish about addressing this. My noble friend has asked several Written Questions on this matter. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

My noble friend’s amendment is agnostic on this issue. It does not preclude asylum claims being granted on the basis of religious conversion, nor does it state that all such claims should be declined. It does not prejudge any claim or seek to cast doubt on anyone’s faith. It requires the Home Office to publish each year a factual report on how many asylum claims were granted on religious grounds and, crucially, how many of those cases involved a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. That data will be broken down by religion and laid before Parliament. That is transparency in action. It would not alter a single individual’s right to claim asylum or change the grounds on which such claims are assessed, but it would give Parliament and the public the information necessary to scrutinise and understand how such claims are being made and determined, and give reassurance to genuine converts and the faith communities that support them that the system operates fairly and consistently. The amendments are about ensuring that government policy is grounded in evidence and that Parliament can fulfil its duty of oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I must start with what may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, when she talked about safeguarding this country’s conditions and living standards. In so doing, she mentioned the established Church. I have to say once more that it is the established Church in England; it was disestablished in Wales, and there is the Episcopalian Church in Scotland and so on. If we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we are very diverse. We are diverse in religion, across nationalities and across language and diverse in all sorts of other ways as well. As a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes.

This amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection based solely on the timing of a person’s religious conversion. The long-established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on their merits. Amendment 79E mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic—post-arrival religious conversion—rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual on return. We must focus ourselves on this matter.

Adopting such a provision would also place the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, which is built on core principles including non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief, established after arrival in this country, the removal of that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement. We must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation—an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.

We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision-makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven, merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary here. For those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands we look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving to rise to them developed.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for this amendment which, as she said, addresses the interpretation of the refugee convention in cases where an individual claims asylum on the grounds of religious persecution following a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. The amendment would make it clear in statute that refugee status should not be granted solely on the basis of a claimed religious conversion that occurred after a person has entered the United Kingdom.

Again, the purpose of this amendment is not to question the sincerity of anyone’s personal faith, nor to diminish the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Rather, it seeks to uphold the integrity of our asylum framework and ensure that the refugee convention is applied as originally intended: to those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, not to those who have created new grounds for asylum only after arrival here. This is a matter of fairness and of public confidence. It is no secret that concerns have been raised, both within this House and among the wider public, about individuals who, having exhausted other immigration routes, subsequently claim asylum on the basis of a newly professed faith. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, how will the Government address this issue?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a long time since the Bill was introduced in the other place and since then much has happened. The Government have brought forward the immigration White Paper detailing changes to the Immigration Rules. They have established a one-in, one-out agreement with France which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on 10 July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats.

We know that the Government are now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system. We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is that events have moved at such a pace that this Bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister’s “smash the gangs” pledge has fallen so flat that the Government appear to have ditched the slogan. But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent but, unfortunately, as we know, this Bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the Government and the Liberal Democrats appear unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the Bill in a positive manner. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place today, sadly, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the Bill requiring the publication of those statistics is welcome and I hope the Government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It is also welcome that the Government agreed with me that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted. They did not cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration crime, nor handling by third parties, and I am very pleased the Government took this on board and brought forward their own amendments.

I thank the Minister. I do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill, but I know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships’ House with his willingness to meet Members of this House privately. I extend my thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends Lord Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lady Lawlor, Lord Goschen and Lady Maclean of Redditch. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both in Committee and on Report, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

To conclude, the Government had the opportunity with this Bill to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. They could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally. They could have committed to deporting all foreign criminals. Unfortunately, they have not, and we will have to wait to see what new ideas the Government bring forward and whether they will have any real impact, because the Home Secretary was right when she said that illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country’s borders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contributions to this debate. We have had some differences but I think both noble Lords will accept that the Government have a plan to try to deliver on our manifesto commitments. Additional proposals are being discussed, and they will be outlined shortly in another place, that will form an answer to the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord German. They are not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the Government’s approach once my right honourable friend has made her Statement. I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their contributions; they have helped generate discussion on the Bill.

As well as the Bill team and my private office, my two colleagues on the Government Bench today from the Whips’ Office have provided stalwart support. I also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that only one defeat of the Government took place on the Bill, which on an issue as contentious as immigration is a matter of some joy for the Government and of some frustration, undoubtedly, for the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.