Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has given us a foretaste of the consideration we will give to Amendment 206, tabled by her noble friend Lady Hamwee and to which I have added my name, which is about Europol. I agree with what she said. I also agree with the interventions made by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke on behalf of his noble friend Lord Browne, about the importance of consultation. Of course, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. She has no reason to fear; no one will ever accuse her of being pompous. She was right to remind us about the importance of the use of words, drawing our attention to “irregular” and “illegal”.

I will speak to Amendment 7, moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on his behalf and that of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which spells out what the duties of the commander should be in

“reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and … increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings”.

In some ways it seems almost otiose to include this in the Bill, as those are clearly the main reasons why the Government brought it forward in the first place, but I understand the need sometimes to use Bills as a form of semaphore to send out signals and why the Opposition Front Bench might wish to do that.

As the Minister knows, I apologised for being unable to speak at Second Reading because a group of us from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, were in Strasbourg to talk about, among other things, interpretations of Article 8 of the ECHR, prosecutions, the number of illegal crossings—as referred to in this amendment—and the criminal gangs manipulating and profiteering on the backs of often desperate people. During that visit, we met, among others, Tim Eicke KC, who has been the British judge in the European court for the past nine years. As noble Lords will know, the Government have put forward the names of three others who will take his place. I am glad to say that he has told me that he is willing to come to your Lordships’ House when he returns in September to share with us many of the experiences that he has had over these past nine years.

The European court and the Council of Europe are not our enemies; some of your Lordships were able to participate in the debate that I moved on behalf of the Cross Benches a few weeks ago on the European Convention on Human Rights—its origins, which we have been celebrating as it is its 75th anniversary, and its importance in this day and age. The Council of Europe and the European convention are inextricably linked. I wanted members of our committee to evaluate and understand that, because if one were to leave the convention it would mean also leaving the Council of Europe and disentangling ourselves from many of the things that I believe will help us ensure that the number of illegal crossings will be reduced and the number of prosecutions increased, because we have to do these things across borders and with our neighbours. If we do not, we will certainly not stem the staggering numbers of people leaving their homelands to make these dangerous crossings.

The Council of Europe and the court shared our concerns in all the discussions that we had. These are not our enemies. We discussed the exploitation and displacement of a staggering 122 million people—a number that has nearly doubled in the past decade. The number of refugees and persons in need of international protection reached over 42 million, while the number of internally displaced people rose to around 74 million. More than two-thirds of refugees originated from just six countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, South Sudan, Sudan and Venezuela. A rough but telling extrapolation from these figures suggests that around one in every 67 people on earth has been forcibly displaced. These people are the shadow which hangs over our debate on this amendment and others today.

On 20 June, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on this Bill. It runs to over 80 pages and I commend it to your Lordships. It is available in the Printed Paper Office. At paragraph 13, we remarked:

“It was not within the scope of this inquiry to look at wider issues such as the root causes of the refugee crisis or proposals for offering safe and legal routes to those in need of protection. Whilst this Bill focuses exclusively on tackling organised immigration crime, we encourage the Government to seek to address the underlying root causes which are fuelling the global refugee crisis”.


We cannot dodge that challenge. I strongly agree with the UNHCR, which, in its recent analysis of global trends, was emphatic that, for meaningful progress to be made,

“we must address the root causes”.

It is a point that I have repeatedly—perhaps some would say tediously—made in your Lordships’ House. Simply blaming international humanitarian law will not be part of the solution.

To be clear, the Joint Committee welcomes the Bill’s overall aims to deter organised crime and prevent loss of life at sea. Of course, we would therefore agree with the terms of this amendment as it is drafted. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure that a legislative framework is in place to help eradicate this terrible and dangerous criminality, but we will not do that by diminishing our obligations to uphold international conventions and commitments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, does an admirable job in his role at the Home Office and I join others in paying tribute to him. I have been deeply impressed by the work he does and it is good to have got to know him over the distance. The Minister knows as well as I do that, if offences are applied too broadly, refugees, victims of people smuggling and modern slavery are being put at risk of being criminalised rather than the smugglers. We have to help the victims as well as tackle the smugglers; it is not a question of one or the other. The Bill needs to target those who are profiting from organised immigration crime. The people they are exploiting need to be protected, but at present there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of the new offences. We are united in wishing to reduce the number of illegal crossings, but we are wary of enacting laws which could have unforeseeable consequences.

I will return to some of these points in later groups. I will try not to be repetitive—we have to make progress on this Bill. I welcome the debate we have had so far on this group and the spirit in which it has been conducted. It is admirable, and far better than some of the exchanges that we had in the previous Parliament, both in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on the Floor of the House. I hope, as we proceed, that we will keep these two objectives in our sights: first, to tackle the illegality of those who are putting lives at risk on a daily basis and, secondly, the importance of protecting those who are so vulnerable.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but I did attend the pre-brief that the Minister kindly gave to Peers.

On Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I would be surprised if such meetings were not on the agenda of anybody holding the position. I have no difficulty with the concept of putting it in the Bill, but I assume it would be a routine level of co-operation that you would expect. However, if she feels it necessary to insist that it is in the Bill, I personally have no objection to it.

As I said to the Minister, my concern is not with the Bill itself but with what is not in it; that is my biggest worry. We have just heard figures about the international situation and, of course, we require an international negotiation to try to solve an international problem. That is why I am surprised that the Government are refusing even to talk to our allies about the 1951 refugee convention. I asked the Government last August and again a few weeks ago, and they refuse to enter into discussions with our allies on that. I would have thought it was a relatively sensible place to start, because the convention was created after World War Two and the world has changed. The problem is highlighted by what we have just been discussing. International aid is obviously another component and, of course, for economic reasons, we are moving in the opposite direction. There is a contradiction at the core of it all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a really important point about the importance of looking again at the things we committed ourselves to in the circumstances in which those were signed. I reassure him that the Joint Committee takes that view too. While we were in Strasbourg, we discussed a letter which had just been sent by nine different Governments, led by Denmark and Donald Tusk’s Poland—which could hardly be regarded as being anti-international law or on the far right of politics—urging the Council of Europe and the European court to look again at the interpretation of things such as Article 8. I know that is the position of the Government, too. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will hear more from the Government about what it actually is that they would like to see reformed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Minister will be aware that, of course, the ECHR has particular connotations for me and Northern Ireland and how we negotiated the Good Friday agreement. Equally, how its terms are being interpreted, within the United Kingdom internally in particular, gives me cause for great concern. No agreement should be unable to be reviewed or looked at with life experience and the passage and flux of time. All I am saying is that the Government need to do both. The refugee convention of 1951 is another component part of it.

Coming back to the point about the powers of the commander, I believe it has to be the Government that set the strategic objectives. If we are not careful, we are also in danger of having too many cooks here. We have Border Force, this new organisation, the Government themselves, the police and all sorts of people involved, indeed including Interpol operating internationally. My anxiety about all of this is that successive Governments and Parliaments—we are all responsible—were all part of the business model of ruthless people who exploit and take money from unfortunate individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

On the other hand, there are our own failings internally about our record-keeping. I do not believe that we really know who is in this country. We do not know how many Governments are putting potential sleeper cells into our country, and we do not really know who leaves and when. Boats are not the only method of irregularly or illegally getting into this country; the old-fashioned back of the lorry and other means are still there and have to be taken into account.

We have a huge task ahead of us, but I say to the Minister that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have substance. I do not see anything wrong with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it seems a reasonably sensible thing to do, and I would have no issues with it at all. However, I remind the Minister that, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the Government in setting goals, and it is within that that we should look at how a commander operates, because that person cannot simply exist in splendid isolation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I am also tempted to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I will restrict myself to that from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which seeks to include a reference to Section 59 in the clause.

Most of the asylum seekers who want to end up in Britain come from countries which we may at first see as safe countries but which soon go into chaos, confusion and great difficulty. So, to define a “safe country” in the rather difficult world that we happen to inhabit at the moment is precarious, because we will never know how safe it is. For a country that we thought was safe, we may suddenly discover that there has been a coup, or that people want a different Government, or that there is a lot of organised theft—and that is not simply a question of corruption, because, for me, the concept of corruption, at the heart of it, is a bit illusory. Because of the vicissitudes that exist for the majority of the people who come to this country illegally, let us not assure ourselves that the countries that we think are safe now will be safe in the next two months. Things change pretty quickly.

If we are to repeal parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Clause 38 of this Bill, it is best to include the repeal of Section 59 and not stop at Section 58, because of the difficulty we find in defining what we thought was a safe country. To put it in legislation would be a very unwise decision. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been wise to invite us to go up to Section 59 and not to stop at Section 58, because we would cover this uncertainty that still exists.

I am also attracted to this idea because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has supported Amendment 104 —and with good reason. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were carefully crafted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but simply to say that, because I come from Uganda, I know that while we may think that the country is stable today, it may easily find itself in great difficulty tomorrow. As legislators, let us not assume that the countries where we want to send these people are safe, because we do not know how quickly that temperature may change, and we may find that we have legislated for something that we really should not have done. Let us not be prophets; let us be legislators.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, when responding to questions about immigration in general, the Minister frequently repeated the phrase that the United Kingdom will honour its international obligations, and I fully understand that. Following the raising of the issue of the 1951 convention, I asked the Government in a Written Question in July last year whether they were talking to our allies and friends with regard to reviewing the convention given the changing circumstances of the world since the day and hour it was drafted. I got a one-liner saying no. I repeated the question on 3 June. The Answer exceeded the one line, but I was told that it had been looked at as long ago as 2018 in the United Nations but that no action had been taken, so, in effect, no discussions were taking place with our allies with regard to the convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, inspires me to join in. His reading of the refugee convention is one with which the House is familiar—we have heard it down the years—but it is not one that the world as yet accepts. It is not accepted by the UNHCR, which is the custodian of the convention. It would be rather Trumpian to propose to change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation. If we wish to see a change, there are procedures set out in the convention for proposing that change and going about it. That is standard practice. It would be a little odd for us to establish the “Murray interpretation”, as set out in the 2021 article, proving the error of the ways of so many Governments around the world, without ourselves trying to sell the “Murray argument”, if we believe in it.

I do not myself believe in it, for the following reason. Let us think about Afghanistan. If you are an Afghan, the Taliban are after you, there is a price on your head, you manage to get over the Khyber and you get to Landi Kotal, you get to Peshawar, and you then get in a plane and come here—or get here by any means—under the “Murray Amendment 203J”, we would be required to send you back immediately to Afghanistan, because, on the reading of the convention by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, you have come indirectly. You touched ground in Pakistan, therefore you cannot have asylum in the United Kingdom. If that became the general interpretation of the convention, it would completely erode the whole purpose of the convention. The purpose of the convention was to ensure that neighbouring states do not have to carry all the burden. Most refugees want to stay in neighbouring states because they hope to go home, but the convention was not intended to say that all refugees must stay in neighbouring states. There was an element of burden sharing in the thinking, and there still is.

If we were to put this amendment into the Bill and require the Government to follow what might be, and I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a very plausible interpretation of the convention—I do not know, I am not a lawyer—we would be seen by all our convention partners as acting in breach of the convention, because they do not agree with it yet. The right course would be to seek a conference at which we propose that the convention should in future be read in a different way from the way it has been read in the past—should be read in the “Murray way”. I have to oppose this amendment very strongly.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I had answers from the Government last year saying that they were not talking to allies and friends. Surely that must be the first sensible thing to do.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but that does not lead me to have any sympathy at all for Amendment 203J.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising barrister including in immigration cases—sometimes for claimants, sometimes for the Home Office. I support this amendment for the reasons so eloquently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and those who have followed him.

I want to add one point, and it is a legal point. The Court of Appeal has explained that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is of course part of our law by reason of the Human Rights Act, imposes obligations on the state to provide civil legal aid in some circumstances. The question of law, says the Court of Appeal, is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his or her case effectively and without unfairness, having regard to the complexity of the relevant laws and the importance of what is at stake. Applying those criteria, you decide whether there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Those criteria were stated by Lord Dyson, the then Master of the Rolls, for the Court of Appeal, in the case of Teresa Gudanaviciene v the Director of Legal of Aid Casework and the Lord Chancellor—a case reported in vol. 1, 2015, of the Weekly Law Reports, page 2247 at paragraph 56.

If you seek to apply those criteria to immigration detention, it seems to me that the answer is very clear: there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Why is that? Because the law in this area is highly complex, and the issues are of great significance to the person concerned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has emphasised, the person concerned is incarcerated. It is wholly unrealistic to think that an unrepresented litigant, who may after all speak little if any English, will be able present their case effectively—that is the test—and without unfairness, if they lack legal representation.

The Government have emphasised repeatedly the importance of complying with their human rights obligations—the Minister has said that; I have heard him on many occasions. I suggest to him that this commitment requires Ministers to look favourably on this amendment and, indeed, to answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to do so irrespective of the cost. I do not think the cost would be more than a tiny proportion of the legal aid budget, but that is not the point. The obligation is irrespective of the cost. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us, when he replies to this important debate, that further thought will be given to this issue by the Government before Report.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, not being a lawyer, I feel more qualified to speak on this than anybody else.

The reality is that legal aid across society is, in effect, a rationed resource; it cannot be universally applied. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a point about obligations, and Parliament has been perhaps unwise in the past to have open-ended obligations when we cannot deliver them. The Minister will no doubt have some figures on this but, if more money is allocated through the legal aid system to asylum and immigration cases, either the budget will have to expand or money will be taken away from other areas. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. This is about choice and priorities, and they need to be matched with obligations that we have shown ourselves unable to meet.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his contribution, it would be invaluable for the Committee to have some factual evidence. A point was made that if cases could be made to go more quickly, with fewer adjournments and appeals, savings could be made—and maybe they could be—but we are flying blind because we do not have the facts. I do not know whether they are obtainable or whether this can be looked at before Report, but it would be extremely helpful to have some factual evidence to support this.

Unless the Government expand the budget for legal aid, something will have to give somewhere. If more money needs to go into this area, less will have to be spent somewhere else. It is not a hugely challenging intellectual concept. It would be most helpful to hear in the Minister’s reply whether he has any facts at his disposal. The Committee would be in a much stronger position to take a decision when we have that information.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate because we have had a fantastic presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the legal arguments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They gave the legal basis for why this amendment ought to be accepted, but I am going to go in another direction—that of ethics.

We as a society may say to ourselves, “We are built on the rule of law and in everything we do it is a mirror by which we are judged”. Then we get strangers whose language is not English and whose background is not that of our culture, and we say, “We really uphold the rule of law”. The best way to know whether we are doing that is, first, that no one is above the law, and, secondly, in how we apply the rule of law to those unfortunate to find themselves facing immigration questions so that people see that this is a society that does not simply talk about the rule of law but upholds it. We are going to be judged by the rule of law.

Immigration is its most testing point. Immediately, people say that such people could be illegal and ask why we should give them legal aid, as it is going to be costly. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: the question of cost cannot in the end trump the rule of law because, if you do not get good representation, you will find those cases going to appeal. If we have not carried out our obligations, we will find this question of the rule of law to be just words and words.

Let me put it another way. Any civilised society that abides by the rule of law will be judged by the way it treats the stranger—the one whose habits and behaviour are not our norm. In the end, if this amendment is not allowed, something similar to it must be, if we really believe that we are a society built on the rule of law.

We will know what we are when we treat the stranger with great disdain and think that anything will do. I know of many immigration appeal cases that happened because there was no legal representative. I know that some cases go wrong because they have not hired a legal person who understands the nuances. If we want to speed this up and hold a mirror to our society, it is what we do, particularly towards the stranger, that demonstrates how we uphold the rule of law. If we cannot, we should stop using these words.