Undocumented Migrants

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, surely if we really want to reduce undocumented migrant movement pull factors, we should stop the emphasis on the resolution of conflict through costly military interventions that provoke worldwide population movements and plunder our development aid budgets. Is not the answer, in part, to more greatly resource third-world development, with measures to de-escalate conflict and—the holy grail—to re-examine the world’s commitment to the principle of prohibited intervention in failing states, as defined by the ICJ?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will share part of my noble friend’s analysis, in that factors of war, poverty and starvation are driving migration from many parts of the world into western Europe. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and other European countries and international partners, are looking at what those driving factors are. Part of the overall strategy needs to be how we deal with poverty, hunger, starvation and the impact of war. There are times when the UK and other partners need to help and support interventions, but I take the first part of my noble friend’s question extremely seriously, and that is something our international partners are very focused on.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I do not intend, in a brief intervention, to argue the case for the Bill. I support the principles behind the Bill as set out; however, I do harbour some reservations as to the process of implementation. I want to concentrate my remarks on that process and in particular the Bill’s handling in this House and—hopefully in an amended form—on its return to the Commons.

After 43 years in Westminster, I have learned a simple lesson: legislate in haste and repent at leisure—there are too many precedents. I am worried that if we pass the legislation in a single session, in the period of implementation it will be subject to repeated attack as unforeseen problems arise. So I propose that we proceed on the following basis. The legislation should be the subject of annual renewal over a period of three years. There are a number of precedents in primary legislation for defined period renewal. For those who follow proceedings outside the House, they may well wish to look at the precedents. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 provided for annual orders on direct rule from Westminster. Section 17 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 provided for annual renewal powers, as did Section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Then we have the provisions under the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980. We also have Section 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which required that the temporary, now devolved, provisions be voted on in Parliament every six months. I understand that attempts were made during passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 to introduce annual renewal, which the House later rejected. So the precedent is there.

Prior to annual renewal, dependent on how the renewal notice was drafted, the Government could introduce amendments to deal with problems identified during implementation of the legislation. On each occasion, Parliament could, if subject to statutory instrument approval, kill the legislation if it was dissatisfied with any proposed efficiency reforms. Equally, if Ministers failed to take renewal orders, the legislation would lapse. If satisfied, however, Parliament could renew. Yes, it is a steep hurdle, but controversial legislation on this scale needs some form of consensus. We need to heed the concerns of those who will support its provisions only in conditions of minimised opportunity for abuse.

Unlike many others, I am not convinced that the annual review by the Chief Medical Officer and the five-year review by the Secretary of State provide sufficient safeguards for Parliament to have a hand in dealing with potential public concerns. I hope to be tabling an amendment in Committee dealing with my concerns. I understand that my son, who is of a similar mind, will speak to such an amendment in the Commons if the opportunity arises.

Operation Conifer

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has said from the Dispatch Box, but is it not time, with a change of government, to put this story to rest by holding a comprehensive case review to examine all the papers? The instinct of the powers that be will be to leave well alone; however, an injustice remains. Cannot we, Labour, be the honest brokers who put this story to bed? Will Ministers give serious thought to my request for a specific inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. If he reflects on what I said at the beginning of my Answer, I am approaching this with an open mind, and it takes time to reflect on those issues. The points he has made today are important, and I will reflect on those as part of my consideration of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.