Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 9 June and provide for the implementation of the devolution deals confirmed on 6 March 2024 between the previous Government and the three councils concerned. This Government have shown their commitment to devolution, moving power from the centre and into the hands of local communities. In May 2025, all three councils consented to the making of this instrument.
If Parliament approves them, the regulations will be made under the enabling provision in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The provisions of the regulations will come into force on the day after the day the regulations are made. The regulations confer housing and regeneration functions on the respective councils, as set out in their devolution agreements. As required, alongside the regulations, we have laid a Section 17(6) report providing details about the public authority functions being devolved to the councils.
Additional funding will be available to the three areas through the adult skills fund, to be devolved to the councils from the 2026-27 academic year, alongside education and skills functions. The Department for Education will work with the councils to support their preparations and aid their meeting the necessary readiness criteria. The Government will legislate in due course, when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that the councils are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each area.
In December 2024, the three councils submitted supporting information on their potential use of the proposed functions. For this, they had engaged with local stakeholders, which showed local support for the conferral of the new functions upon each of these councils. In laying this instrument before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2016 Act are met; namely, that the making of the regulations is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant local authorities’ areas.
To conclude, these regulations will move forward this Government’s agenda of English devolution, empowering local leaders to make decisions that will benefit their communities. I extend my thanks to the local leaders and their councils for their hard work and the vital role that they play in making this critical mission a reality in their areas. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I support this statutory instrument, which confers housing and regeneration functions upon Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council, to be exercised concurrently with Homes England. This instrument follows the level 2 devolution framework arrangements made in March 2024 between the previous Conservative Government and the three local authorities, as the Minister has rightly outlined.
The regulations grant a suite of powers relating to housing and regeneration. Specifically, they enable councils to take on responsibility for the provision of housing, regeneration of land and infrastructure, and the acquisition and disposal of land. These are important functions previously held by Homes England. As a councillor and ex-council leader, I know how doing this locally is so much better than doing it nationally. It allows things to be done in a way that delivers better outcomes for residents, frequently at lower cost.
We on these Benches support these measures and welcome the Government’s continued commitment to advancing devolution in these areas. The statutory instrument, as the Minister has already laid out, honours the agreement made in good faith by local leaders under the previous Government and reflects what we hope will remain a shared cross-party commitment to empowering local communities to shape their own future.
In the cases of Surrey and Warwickshire, the inclusion of a safeguard requiring district council consent for the use of compulsory purchase orders under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is a particularly welcome provision. It recognises the reality of two-tier local government in those areas and helps preserve the principle of local democratic accountability. We welcome the Minister’s confirmation that these powers cannot be exercised without that consent.
We are also mindful that these arrangements come at a time of wider transition in the local government landscape. As the Government prepare to introduce the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we would welcome clarity in due course on how existing level 2 agreements, such as those we are discussing today, will align with any new combined authority or mayoral structures that may follow in these areas.
In conclusion, we believe that this statutory instrument is a positive and practical step. It strengthens local leadership and provides councils with important tools to deliver housing, regenerate communities and respond to local priorities. It is right that we uphold the commitments made through the devolution framework agreements; we are pleased to support the implementation of this measure today.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for this instrument. He is a fellow council leader; we often discussed these matters when we were both council leaders. I totally support what he said about decisions being better taken at the local level than by central government when they affect local areas, and I appreciate both his comments and his support for the instrument.
I will comment on the noble Lord’s points about the integration of these proposals with what is happening with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, as we know, had its Second Reading in the other place yesterday. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government’s strong preference is for partnerships that bring more than one local authority together over a larger geography, to unlock further devolution. These steps are seen very much as foundation steps towards achieving that.
On the areas under discussion today, Buckinghamshire Council will need to form a mayoral strategic authority over more than one council footprint. These regulations will ensure that Surrey will see early benefits from devolution in the short term as all options to unlock deeper devolution are assessed. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, will be aware, the Government recently consulted on two proposals that came forward for unitary local government in Surrey; a decision will be made on which of those proposals to implement.
These regulations will ensure that Warwickshire also sees early benefits from devolution in the short term as all options to unlock deeper devolution are assessed. The Government recently invited proposals for unitary local government in Warwickshire; we look forward to hearing from local government colleagues there when we get closer to those being submitted.
In conclusion, the instrument delivers on the commitment made in devolution agreements with Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils to confer housing and regeneration functions on each local authority. I am grateful for the support for it.
Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 16 June 2025.
Effective local audit is vital for local accountability and transparency. The Government are committed to reforming the local audit system, including by addressing long-standing concerns around proportionality and capacity. Smaller authorities include parish and town councils, internal drainage boards, port authorities and parish meetings. They provide valued local services, from running community halls and allotments to managing small ports and drainage systems, but they do not require the same extensive audit arrangements as larger public bodies.
Much of our reform programme is focused on fixing the principal authority regime, which we know faces serious challenges; I have spoken about this many times, both in my shadow role and in the ministerial role that I hold now. It is important that the audit system for smaller authorities remains sustainable and works well. These regulations, along with other measures, will help ensure that the system as a whole remains proportionate and responsive to feedback.
We are certainly not removing scrutiny or accountability for smaller authorities. That will continue to be provided through the annual governance and accountability return. We have also committed to reviewing the AGAR so that it continues to be effective by enhancing transparency while keeping administrative burdens proportionate.
Increasing the threshold for small authorities is designed to prevent smaller bodies being drawn into the principal audit regime in future. This would be wholly disproportionate, given their size and responsibilities. Raising the threshold to £15 million is not about reducing oversight; it is about ensuring that the regulatory framework remains fair, proportionate and suitable for purpose. This change will allow smaller authorities to focus their time and resources on delivering essential services rather than navigating financial reporting, assurance and audit requirements that are out of step with their scale and responsibilities.
The threshold for smaller authorities has not changed since it was introduced in 2014. More than a decade on, it no longer reflects today’s financial environment. What was once a sensible level is now outdated, creating unnecessary pressures for smaller authorities whose financial activity has grown over time. These smaller authorities do not have the same breadth of services, assets or liabilities as even the smallest district council, yet, under the current arrangements, they risk being subject to a full financial audit at a level that brings significant cost and resource implications and draws on scarce audit capacity that should be focused on principal authorities.
Our local audit reform strategy recognises the need for a more proportionate approach to audit arrangements that reflects an organisation’s functions and complexity rather than simply its size. Subject to parliamentary approval of the audit measures set out in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the local audit office will work closely with the department to take that forward.
This instrument raises the audit threshold for smaller authorities to £15 million, applying from the 2025-26 financial year. This is a proportionate reform that reduces unnecessary audit requirements, helps to free up capacity in the principal audit market and ensures that auditors can concentrate on those areas where assurance is most needed. The regulations, if approved by Parliament, will be made under the enabling provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and will take effect the day after they are made.
I am sure that our discussion today will show that we share a common goal to ensure that audit arrangements remain proportionate to allow local authorities and other local bodies to focus on delivering for their communities. I look forward to answering any questions that noble Lords might have and to participating in our discussion on this instrument today. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting them.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the local authority audit system was wrecked by the previous Government. Electoral Commission data shows that in the period leading to the 2010 general election big accounting firms handed millions of pounds in cash and non-cash donations to the Conservative Party and got their wish, which was the abolition of the Audit Commission. The commission used to make considerable use of the district auditor service, as has been mentioned, and was reluctant to award auditor appointments to big accounting firms as they were not really considered to be fit for the purpose. The commission was a watchdog and a guide dog as it focused on efficiency and effectiveness and guaranteed auditor independence. Since then, we have had several local authority scandals, but big accounting firms have continued to collect millions of pounds in audit fees. I look forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill when it comes, but meanwhile I have a number of concerns about local authority audit matters.
The Government’s 9 April 2025 paper Local Audit Reform: A Strategy for Overhauling the Local Audit System in England stated:
“Audited accounts are a vital and independent source of evidence of the sector’s financial health and value for money for residents, local bodies and elected members”.
It adds that audit provides,
“the only independent check on whether local bodies’ financial statements are true and fair. This is vital not only for good decision-making but for transparency and to enable local communities to hold their councils and other local bodies to account”.
However the statutory instrument in front of us actually dilutes the audit requirements for smaller authorities. Can the Minister explain how the Government’s claims of an “independent check” and “transparency” will be delivered in the absence of independent scrutiny, which the Minister just praised?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have, in the past few days, stepped down as the vice-chairman of the local government resources panel, which has oversight of audit and accountancy within the Local Government Association. In that guise, I have been very well acquainted with the difficulties in local government audit.
If there is a villain of the piece—I use that word advisedly—the noble Lord, Lord Porter, when he was chairman of the Local Government Association struck a wonderful deal that established the PSAA, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. He drove down those costs and council tax payers benefited from low-cost audit for many years. With the benefit of hindsight, however, perhaps he did too good a job, because it came to pass that it was very difficult for audit practitioners to recruit the right staff at the right level, and they got behind.
We ended up in regrettable circumstances—through no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, I stress—aggravated by Covid, in which a number of local authorities had failed to sign off their accounts. I cannot remember the precise details but some were four or five years old—so old, in fact, that the authorities concerned no longer existed because they had been reorganised away. I am very pleased that the previous Government, belatedly perhaps, took a grip. A line was drawn in the sand and some transitional arrangements made, and now things are much better.
However, I am very concerned that we now see the increase in the threshold. I appreciate that we need to increase the threshold value, but going from £6.5 million to £15 million is a huge increase—of 230% in one bite. That will mean that some of the smaller authorities, which hitherto have been contained within the audit regulations—I will give some examples presently—no longer will be.
I am seeking reassurance because we are establishing the definition of a smaller authority. I cannot be blind to the notion—the Minister referred to it in the earlier debate—that we have a local government devolution and reorganisation Bill in the other place; it passed Second Reading yesterday. In that circumstance, we will see a large number of smaller principal authorities, which are subject to the full audit regime, fall into the third tier of local government—that is, they will not be subject to the 5% or £5 council tax increase cap, if I may use that word.
I want to highlight the example of Salisbury City Council. It used to be a district council and a principal authority but, since the reorganisations in Wiltshire, that is no longer the case. In the past four years, it has jacked up its council tax by 44%. I note that its total precept for this year is only £6.065 million, marginally below the threshold limit to which it is subject. Its gross income is £8.64 million. Currently, it is part of the arrangement to have a full audit. Having jacked up council tax by 44% over the past four years, I think it should be. If it is increased to £15 million, however, what assurance can the local people—the long-suffering residents of Salisbury—have that the council has their best interests at heart? By contrast, the Wiltshire unitary authority, which has assumed responsibility for most of the expensive services, put its council tax up by only 4.5% last year.
I am concerned that this definition will, in due course—not today, because I am conscious that we are concerned solely with audit—be used, as we go through local government reorganisation, to give a free pass to some of the smaller city councils and larger town councils, which will inevitably will fall out of the LGR process and let them let rip. Of course, it is not just the district councils, it is the internal drainage boards. I am concerned about the case of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, which had an increase in the internal drainage board levy of 91% last year, which the council was mandated to pass on to local taxpayers. Over the past few years, it has gone up by 117%. That means that because the district council in Great Yarmouth is a principal authority, it could put its council tax up by only £5, but 91% of that was as a result of the unavoidable increase from the internal drainage board that lies within it. That meant that only 9%, just £26,000 of the increase in council tax in that historic borough—I declare an interest because my business is in that borough, but I do not pay council tax there—could be devoted to the provision and improvement of local services. We shall see a whole class of authority that would currently be within the £6.5 million but will no longer be caught if the threshold rises to £15 million.
I want to highlight the example of the Broads Authority, which is well known for its governance failings. It is well known to be a dysfunctional organisation and, in the interests of transparency, I have in the past made complaints to that body through the mishandling of certain planning matters. Its gross budget is £9.7 million. If ever an organisation needed the close scrutiny of a full audit, it is the Broads Authority and now it will be given a free pass. It will be let off from public scrutiny. This is the unintended consequence of this legislation.
Finally, I want to get the definition of “smaller authority” on the record in the context of local government reorganisation, and ask the Minister what the Government’s intentions are. If it is contemplated that this definition of “smaller authority”—the £15 million threshold—will be used post local government reorganisation, when some of these smaller cities, such as Salisbury, or larger towns such as Scarborough or Shrewsbury, which are certainly covered by the audit now but would not be in future, is it proposed that this definition will cap them at £5 or 5%? There will have to be some reckoning. We cannot have a situation whereby only the large unitary authorities that will be formed after LGR have their council tax capped at £5 or 5%. What is the Government’s view about capping, limiting and putting the local taxpayer first from some of these much larger authorities, which will take on other responsibilities—possibly for local culture, parks and dog bins—when their current responsibilities for social care, planning, housing and homelessness are removed? We cannot have a situation where a 230% increase in threshold allows a new class of large, small authority to let rip at the expense of local taxpayers.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument. I share many of the perspectives of the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Fuller. I hope the Minister, in replying, will be able to meet some of the concerns expressed. The context, as we have heard, is the abolition of the Audit Commission 10 years ago. It was supposed to save £100 million a year but it did not do that. It was supposed to make local audit more efficient and it did not do that. It has not saved money. Costs have risen substantially since 2015. The private sector was supposed to take over from the Audit Commission but it has not worked like that, because there have been nowhere near enough trained auditors. There have been, as we have heard, huge delays in the audits of English local authorities. That is the background to this draft statutory instrument.
Lord Fuller (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was speaking, I was looking at the RPI tables from the Office for National Statistics. Had the £6.5 million been increased by inflation, it would have been £10.3 million. So we are seeing a proposed threshold that is fully 50% greater than the increase in inflation over the same period. I just wonder whether that might help the noble Lord’s argument.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It may be that RPI is the right way of doing it. I do not know why he took RPI there and not CPI. However, the issue is: why, in fact, are the Government not going to peg the £15 million to inflation? At what point will that figure then be adjusted because inflation continues to rise? We have to have a debate about that fact, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for explaining the RPI figures since 2014. Clearly, it may be that £15 million is the correct figure, but I would like to know what assessment the department has made of the implications of that figure on the number of local authorities that will be taken out of the full audit requirement?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, again, I raise my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which, just being slightly boastful, is a council that for the 10 years I was leader had its accounts audited and signed off every year within the deadline and was one of the few councils to do so.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The instrument raises the threshold, as has been discussed, to £15 million in annual income or expenditure. Public bodies below this will no longer need to have the full audit and can follow the streamlined annual governance and accountability return—AGAR—process.
This reform is in response to the long-standing and well documented challenges that England’s local audit system faces. It is worth noting that this is not a new policy initiative. The foundations were laid under the previous Conservative Government, who published the consultation in December 2024, setting out proposals to overhaul the local audit framework. The consultation highlighted widespread concerns around audit capacity proportionality and long-term sustainability. A formal response was subsequently published on 9 April 2025. I ask the Minister to update the Committee on progress towards implementing the remaining elements of this broader strategy.
We believe that the instrument before us is a pragmatic and proportionate reform. It recognises that many smaller authorities do not carry the same level of financial risk as larger bodies and should not be burdened with audit requirements that are both costly and unnecessary where they are unnecessary.
The Government have suggested that this change will ease the financial and administrative burden on smaller authorities, reduce the pressure on the over- stretched audit market and allow scarce audit resources to be better focused on higher-risk councils where scrutiny is most urgently needed. We note that 55% of the consultation respondents supported raising the threshold, indicating that the proposal carries a degree of support from within the sector itself.
In closing, I would be grateful if the Minister could address a few further points. First, what safeguards are in place to ensure that smaller authorities, no longer subject to the full audit, continue to operate with high standards of financial transparency and sound governance, which I think addresses the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was raising? While £15 million is a sensible threshold, will other factors be taken into account, such as the debt levels of councils? A council that is heavily in debt, even if it is just below the £15 million threshold, is clearly at much higher risk than one that is just above it and has no debt.
Secondly, will the department be issuing updated guidance to support these authorities as they continue using the AGAR framework? As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, are there other consequences that are not in this paper, and that are coming as a change to this definition, that we are not considering today and should be considered?
Finally, can the Minister provide an update on the progress of the wider local audit reform programme, as set out in December 2024? In particular, will she address the issues of proportionality, risk-based accounting and focusing that limited resource on higher-risk areas and not on low-risk, bureaucratic processes?
I have one other question; I apologise. Can the Minister update the Committee on how the Government are addressing the shortage of local government audit practitioners?
These are my last few sentences. We support this instrument in principle. It is a sensible step forward towards a more proportionate, risk-based local audit regime. However, I raise those various issues. We need to ensure that there is robust oversight, transparency and regular review, to ensure that public accountability is not diminished in the process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate. As noble Lords will know, I spent a lot of time on the same board that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sat on: the LGA Resources Board.
We have talked a lot about the history of the abolition of the Audit Commission. I do not think that any of us want to go back down that route. Although the steps that were taken were taken with good intent and might have driven down costs, the complexity of local government audit was, I think, underestimated. We ended up in a situation where we had a significant backlog of audits and where some of the smaller local authorities were subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to as unnecessary bureaucracy and financial reporting. That did not help anybody, which is why the Government are firmly committed to bringing forward reform of the local audit system more generally. Much of that is contained in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that we will have some more interesting discussions on the wider issues around audit during the passage of that Bill.
I will pick up some of the points that have been made here today. Nobody wants to see audit improve more than I do. The importance of reassuring local people that their councils are operating in a financially sound manner cannot be underestimated; that is vital, so we want to see it working well.
On my noble friend Lord Sikka’s comments, there is significant provision for this smaller authority audit regime to continue to provide transparency to the public, through the annual governance and accountability return, and for authorities under the £15 million threshold. We believe that this is both proportionate and sufficient. The regime still includes requirements for transparency, public inspection rights and the ability of local electors to raise concerns with external auditors. Local electors will retain the right to inspect accounts and raise their concerns; this will ensure that public oversight and accountability are still there even when those full audits are no longer required.
I think that my noble friend’s points about the oversight bodies will be more usefully discussed when we discuss the wider audit picture. I understand the points that he makes and I am sure that we will have those discussions in due course; I am grateful for his contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about the audit failings with which anyone in local government is very familiar. I will start with his comments about proportionality; I will come on to the issues around authorities in a moment.
The way that this will work is that, if district or higher-tier councils fall below the new threshold, they will become a smaller authority for that year. In the following two years, even if it goes over the threshold in those two years, the department will work with any affected authorities to agree what the appropriate approach should be. By avoiding unnecessary financial reporting and audit costs, those smaller councils will be able to focus their money on where it matters most: supporting local communities and delivering essential services.
The noble Lord raised the important point about council tax capping in those small authorities. It is not intended that these regulations will be in any way related to the council tax capping regime. They are simply about determining financial reporting assurance and the audit regime requirements for local authorities. That is the intent.
The noble Lord raised the Broads Authority. I refer to my previous comments about public scrutiny. Obviously, the governance of the Broads Authority is for the electorate to determine, eventually.
The noble Lord asked whether the definition would cap smaller towns at a 5% council tax cap. I hope that what I have said makes it clear that this regime is not linked to the council tax capping regime, so there should not be an impact on that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification, which will give local taxpayers a great degree of reassurance that this is wholly separate from the LGR process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue and giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the history of the abolition of the Audit Commission. He asked me about the 2014 threshold and there being no impact assessment. I cannot answer his specific question about how many authorities are taken out of this regime, but I will reply in writing to that question.
The way that this has been developed is that we have been very responsive to stakeholder feedback following the consultation that was initiated. The view of stakeholders is that £15 million will be the appropriate threshold ahead of the Secretary of State undertaking a wider review of audit regimes to make sure that they are all fit for purpose as we enter the new local audit office regime. I hope that answers the substantive question that he asked me.
Aligning audit thresholds with inflation in the future is an important issue. We need to make sure that we do not get ourselves into the same bind that we have before of audit regimes that get out of sync with what is happening in local authorities. Subject to parliamentary approval, the local audit office will work with the department to advance a more proportionate approach and remove the sorts of cliff edges that come from purely financial threshold-based approaches. Our intent is to work with the sector and the local audit office to change that approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about progress on implementation. This is a first step. Also picking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about Salisbury City Council and Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board, our engagement with the sector demonstrates that uplifting the upper threshold should be prioritised ahead of the local audit office’s establishment, particularly given the issues with the authorities that noble Lords have mentioned, because they already exceed the upper threshold and they found it impossible to get auditors to do their audit. That is the reason why this has been done ahead of that, but progress on the local audit office is going through. We know that there was a Second Reading in the other place yesterday. I hope my response to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on local transparency helps to answer some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that there is no cost-benefit analysis or impact statement in relation to this statutory instrument? I am particularly interested in what the cost of not doing the audits might be, whether financial or non-financial in terms of risks, impropriety, and so on. Can she confirm whether there is no analysis or whether the Government plan to do some? Either way, clarification would be helpful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is not usual to have an impact statement for an instrument such as this. There will be an impact statement for the Bill, of course, when it comes forward with the local audit office proposals. However, I can tell my noble friend that the assurance reviews to which smaller authorities are subject cost between £210 and £3,780.
On principal audits, anyone who has been part of a local authority knows that when the audit bill comes in every year, it is a significant cost to the local authority. It can range from £70,000 to more than £1 million. My local authority is a relatively small authority in Hertfordshire but, when I stepped down from it, the bill was already well over £130,000. That is an enormous cost on the taxpayer. If it is not proportionate and necessary, we should be taking that burden away from council tax payers and letting local authorities spend that money on the services that they need. I hope that partial response to my noble friend’s question helps.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked whether debt levels will be taken into account. I feel fairly sure that the AGAR guidelines will include a way of determining whether the debt levels of an authority require additional attention to be drawn to that authority. I will come back to the noble Lord on that in writing because it is important. As we know, even relatively small authorities have seen significant debt levels in recent times, so that is an important issue, and I thank him for raising it.
The noble Lord asked about the publication of the AGAR guidelines. Again, I am pretty sure we will have guidelines on that, but I will respond more fully in writing, if that is okay.
I hope that I have picked up all noble Lords’ questions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
There was one more, which was about addressing the shortage of local authority auditors.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The uncertainty around this in the past couple of years has not helped. Once the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill goes through, and it is very clear to everybody what the approach to local audit will be, we will work closely with the sector to ensure that we are developing the capacity in the workforce and the skills that we need to make sure that audit is carried out properly. I cannot emphasise enough my understanding of how important that is to reassure local people that their authorities are operating in a financially sound way, so I give the noble Lord my reassurance that I will be keeping a careful eye on that. I hope that the certainty that the Bill delivers on the local audit office proposals helps us to move that on.
In conclusion, these changes will support small authorities by ensuring appropriate governance and accountability without unnecessary burdens. They will help protect value for money and contribute to a more sustainable local audit system. The instrument delivers a clear benefit to smaller authorities by aligning audit requirements with the scale and risk of local authorities, ensuring that the local audit system is proportionate and efficient. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 19 June 2025. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 4 July in relation to the draft instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page three of the draft regulations that are the subject of this debate. The change was from Her Majesty’s Treasury to His Majesty’s Treasury. Clearly, this does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation.
In February 2025 we consulted on expanding the warm home discount scheme, which provides low-income and vulnerable households with a £150 rebate off their energy bills. Today, we are considering the regulations that will allow us to implement those changes and bring this much-needed relief to around 2.7 million additional households. Since we took office, this Government have been committed to alleviating fuel poverty. Our review of the 2021 fuel poverty strategy made clear that progress has stalled and that we need a new plan to speed up progress on tackling fuel poverty. There are two principal ways of doing this. The first is by improving household energy performance and the second by expanding direct bill support to make energy more affordable.
Starting with the first, at the spending review in June, the Chancellor confirmed £13.2 billion for our warm home plan that will transform the housing stock and improve energy efficiency across the country, ensuring that less money is wasted on leaking, ageing homes that are expensive to heat. However, while we press on with that vital work, we recognise that many households remain at risk of fuel poverty and cannot wait until later in this Parliament to feel the benefits. That is why we are also expanding the warm home discount, providing vital support to those who need it most. This support will be available immediately, coming into effect this winter and, importantly, consumers do not need to take any action to receive it.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households every year by reducing their energy bills when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £150 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households also receive rebates.
The statutory instrument before us seeks to amend the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 to allow changes to the eligibility criteria for this coming winter so that more households can receive rebates. It will also extend the time period in which rebate notices can be issued to suppliers, so that as many as possible can be issued before the current regulations expire on 31 March 2026. The SI also amends the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 to increase suppliers’ non-core spending obligation by an amount considered to be commensurate to the expected increase in England and Wales.
This SI is a result of our consultation in February, in which we proposed to remove the high cost to heat threshold that we believed was unfairly excluding some vulnerable households from the scheme. This threshold often meant that families in almost identical circumstances were treated differently, with some receiving the rebate while others missed out. The current system also excludes many households in smaller properties because their home is not classified as high cost to heat, meaning that our support has not been reaching some of those who need it the most.
Removing the high cost to heat threshold will make all energy bill payers who receive a qualifying means-tested benefit eligible for the warm home discount. By bringing around 2.7 million additional households into the scheme, it pushes the total number of households that will receive the discount in winter 2025-26 up to around 6 million, which is one in five households in the UK.
We have a statutory duty to tackle fuel poverty. It is our duty as a Government to break down the barriers that prevent some of the most vulnerable families in the country receiving the support they need. The proposed regulations will help us to achieve this. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations before us. I am conscious that this is not her department. Nevertheless, with her Cumbrian background—not just background but experience—she will be conscious of the number of families in fuel poverty, in particular those off the gas grid.
One of the challenges around the warm home discount is that it is focused solely on electricity bill payers, so there are some issues there around aspects of fuel poverty and how it gets distributed. I am conscious that it has generally been a success; I am going to sound a note of caution though. This looks like a potentially generous package. Of course it is: it is the second, if not the third, package brought in by this Government that is very generous to households that receive universal credit. We have seen the extension of free school meals. With the Royal Assent coming through today, we will see a big uplift for everybody who is on universal credit. I think that the Government underestimated how much all this is going to cost, partly in the impact assessment for the Act that has just gone through but also in these regulations. Even now, there are more people on universal credit than it seems has been considered by the impact assessment for these draft regulations.
There is also a different way of thinking about this. These measures are increasing incentives for people not to increase their earnings and to stay on universal credit as long as they can. That is part of what the Government need to think about in these regulations.
There is another oddity here. Changing the criteria will mean the number of households receiving the discount rising from an estimated 3.4 million—around 3.1 million in England and around 300,000 in Scotland —to an estimated 6.1 million, although I think that it will be a lot more and it will, therefore, cost a lot more. People’s average energy bills will go up by about two-thirds, but everybody pays that levy. Consequently, those estimated 3.4 million people will be worse off as a consequence of the rebate now applying to a lot more people. Before, the cost of the levy was estimated at £22. The net effect is £150 minus £22, which is £128. With the average levy now going up to £37 a year, the logical consequence is of that benefit ending up dropping to £113 per household. I appreciate that the finer points may not work out quite like that in some of the calculations, but the Government cannot do this in a very detailed way. So we are in this odd situation where those households with the highest estimated energy costs will get less rebate to help them; I do not understand how that is going to help fuel poverty.
I appreciate, by the way, that the Minister does not have policy responsibility here. I am not sure what sort of response I might get from DESNZ, but it would be quite useful to get some thinking on that.
The reason why I think the costs here have been underestimated is that, in May this year, the UC statistics showed that 6.6 million households were on universal credit, 6.1 million of which are getting payments. That is not simply the transfer from existing legacy benefits to universal credit; there is an element of that, but that number will continue to increase because people are still claiming universal credit. On top of that, there are around 1.4 million people receiving pension credit and around 1.1 million pensioners receiving housing benefit. This is why the figures start to get bigger and bigger. There will undoubtedly be an overlap between the 1.4 million on pension credit and the 1.1 million on housing benefit; nevertheless, this will show, I think, that the costs here have been underestimated. I fear that the levy will, in effect, be higher for other bill payers. It is not the same as the winter fuel payment, because that came from taxpayers—this is coming from every bill payer.
I should also point out to noble Lords, based on a response to an Answer, that there are 200,000 households on universal credit with an income of more than £35,000. They will continue to receive this benefit now. The brilliant DWP—I love it so much—is fantastic at getting the matching. So I would be grateful to understand why DESNZ estimates that 28% of the 8.1 million people it thinks are eligible for this will not receive the warm home discount due to data-matching. Surely more should be done to kick the energy companies. I am concerned that park home residents are excluded. They are a particular group who have a nice life but tend to be on pretty low incomes, but I understand some of the complexities.
I found it astonishing in a different way, although it was perhaps a bit welcome, that there was a 150% uplift of people receiving this in London compared to the rest of the country. That is pretty high, given that more than double the number of households in the south-east will receive this. Clearly, this has not necessarily been done on what might be considered traditional regional adjustments. It is important also, regarding aspects in annexe 5 of the assessments, that the NHS estimates that the preventable costs would be about £540 million. Now the cost on these bills is going up to £1 billion, but I am convinced it will be more like £1.1 or £1.2 billion.
Of course I am not going to try and vote down this instrument, because that is not what we do in the Lords. I wish I had spotted the consultation earlier so that I could have contributed then but, when we come to the post-implementation review of the regulations in a few years’ time, the figures will be telling and Ministers should be looking out for this a lot more quickly. Genuinely, the impact will be that benefits from this levy will decrease, as opposed to increase.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations in the form of the statutory instrument before us. I share and echo the concerns of my noble friend, without going into any great length, who was an excellent Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions at a most difficult time during Covid—a big applause to her and her department at the time, and the work that it continues to do.
I welcome much of the content of the regulations. I forgot to declare my interest as president of National Energy Action and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water, which will be significant when I come on to smart meters. However, the Whip on duty will remind me that I have said this in the past, so I am going to say it again because I want to record it at every opportunity. I do not know if it is something that the department might look at but, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer today, can she write and place a copy of the letter in the Library? Those households that are most in need of energy, such as in the north of England, Scotland and many vulnerable areas would have qualified for, say, £300, so fewer households would have benefited, but it would have had a much bigger impact on fuel poverty in that regard. Is that something that the Government are minded to look at?
Again, it is not part of these regulations but it is something that National Energy Action would like to place on the record but that I do not necessarily agree with. It would like to see a social tariff. My understanding is that there was a social tariff for energy prior to the warm home discount. I was trying to explain to NEA that you either have one or the other. Social tariffs operate quite effectively in the water sector, but I do not see how we can have both. I presume that that is something that the department under successive Governments has looked at. I should like to find out and have placed on the record for National Energy Action’s benefit what the current Government’s thinking is. Are we going to stick with the warm home discount, which would be my preference, or are we going to have both a warm home discount and the social tariffs?
My more radical thinking, when the Minister was referring to the contents of the regulation and the result of the consultation, was about transforming the housing stock. The Government have granted £13.2 million, not an insignificant sum of money, in that regard. I have a mounting concern that there is housing stock—I see this locally, and I am sure it is in other parts of the country as well—that would benefit from just a bit of an upgrade in having double-glazed windows and maybe a bit of stuff in the wall cavity areas and the roofs to make those houses more habitable. Obviously that would reduce the cost of heating, so it is not going out the window or through the walls, so to speak.
The plan I propose is that we reverse VAT. Take VAT off renovations and put it on newbuild. That way, I argue that it would be neutral. Obviously, it would pass on to the purchasers of new houses, but it would greatly increase the housing stock. Again, that is not in the regulations, but is it something that the Government might consider?
In preparing for today, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 30th report, where it did a short analysis on this. Its conclusion, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referred to, was:
“We note that the percentage increase in the levy on billpayers and the impact of the expansion of the Scheme on the number of recipients and overall spending are expected to be significant”.
It is no secret that the major parties are deeply concerned about the cost of living crisis, which is ongoing. We have had the higher cost, for those who are not on a fixed tariff, of energy prices going forward for this winter. As my noble friend pointed out, that is going to mean a higher increase for those households that do not benefit to pay for the significant amount of money, which we know to be approximately £1 billion, up from £600 million in the past.
The Government could look at other measures as well. I have long been interested in the possibility of having a smart meter. Anna Walker did a report on water efficiency at the same time as there were the reports by Martin Cave on competition and Michael Pitt on flooding in about 2007 or 2008. Of those three reports, the Walker report on water efficiency never really got any legs. However, she gave very useful advice like, “Don’t run your water when you’re brushing your teeth, but in particular don’t run the hot water because you’re literally putting hot water that you have heated down the system, which is ridiculous”.
Is there a possibility that energy and water would both be governed by the same smart meter? Are the Government aware that currently—my authority for this is the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, which I happened to listen to on, I think, Friday—there is evidence that smart meters do not work in rural areas? I know the Minister lives in a deeply rural area. I have been reluctant to fit a smart meter for that reason; there is no point in having one fitted if it is not going to work. Apparently they will give you all these other gadgets to help it work, but still it will not.
If smart meters are not working and people are not able to monitor true energy use then that is one point, but if we were able to develop smart meters that covered both water consumption and energy consumption then that would be a big plus for households. So I give a cautious welcome to these regulations, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make the few comments that I have.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this instrument brings forward much needed and real expansion of a vital scheme that we believe will have significant positive impacts. We welcome the proposed expansion of the warm home discount, which aims to bring financial relief to millions more households across Great Britain that are grappling with the brutal realities of fuel poverty and escalating energy bills.
What we have here is, in essence, a doubling of those who will be eligible for the £150 rebate on energy bills. This will bring vital relief to many families who are struggling, but the scale of the challenge is immense. In England alone, some 2.7 million households are trapped in fuel poverty. The average fuel poverty gap has soared to an alarming £407—a near 60% increase since 2020 in real terms. Disturbingly, the number of households forced to spend over 10% of their income on energy bills, after housing costs, has more than doubled since 2020 to 9 million households in 2024. Furthermore, energy debt and arrears hit a record £3.85 billion in December 2024.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this statutory instrument, which proposes a further expansion of the warm home discount scheme.
I start by confirming that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support the principle of shielding vulnerable households from fuel poverty. The extension of support to an additional 2.7 million households, including working-age families with children, is of course a positive and welcome step, particularly as we approach another potentially challenging winter. There is no doubt that many people will benefit from this measure.
However, while the Government’s intentions are commendable, their method of implementation raises important questions. Our understanding is that this expansion is not being funded through general taxation or through efforts to improve efficiency within the energy system. Instead, it relies on increasing green levies on energy bills—the very costs that will be borne by working households. According to the Government’s impact assessment and as we have heard from noble Lords, this will result in an average increase of £15 per household per year, bringing the total cost of the warm home discount to £37. That represents a 60% rise to the average dual fuel bill payer, and it should be highlighted that this was not prominently featured in the announcement. This approach surely risks creating a circular dynamic. Higher energy costs driven by policy decisions are then partially mitigated by support schemes funded, conversely, by those same rising costs. While the short-term relief is real, the medium- to long- term implications deserve scrutiny.
We must also consider the broader context. The Government have pledged to reduce energy bills by £300 per year, a commitment that seems increasingly difficult to reconcile with policies that contribute to rising costs. This statutory instrument, while helpful to some, may inadvertently deepen our reliance on cross-subsidies to mask the underlying changes in our energy strategy. The ambition to reach clean power by 2030 is totally laudable, but challenging. If the path taken results in higher bills for ordinary working families, we must ask whether the strategy is serving its intended purpose. Would it not be optimal to agree that clarity and simplicity often yield the best outcomes? If our goal is to reduce fuel poverty, which it absolutely should be, then should we not focus on making energy supply more abundant and affordable, not more expensive and constrained?
A more balanced approach to funding the energy transition is needed, one that prioritises domestic supply, domestic storage and nuclear alongside renewables. It is time for greater transparency about the costs and trade-offs involved, because the current path places a disproportionate burden on those hard-working people least able to bear it. For these reasons, while we support the principle behind this measure, we urge the Government to reconsider the funding mechanism and the broader strategy that it reflects.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate on an important issue for their contributions and for the broad support that the Committee has expressed for this statutory instrument. I shall cover the questions as best I can. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the fact that the scheme relates to electricity bills. She referenced the issues around rural heating—she mentioned Cumbria, where I live. It is a real issue for rural areas. We need to move away from fossil fuels. There are some challenges in rural areas on how we do that. I know that the department is working hard on this to understand those challenges because the transition needs to be countrywide, not just in one area and not another.
The noble Baroness also asked about universal credit. It is probably best if I ask my colleagues in the DWP to respond to that because I do not have the information and officials in DESNZ would not, so we will pass that on to the DWP if that is okay with her. She also asked about lower benefits to households. I stress that the impact assessment is based on our best estimates, but its purpose is to help those who are on low-income and means-tested benefits because that is the best way for us to get directly to the people who need the most support.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. There were a few questions, which I believe her officials will have noted. I appreciate that UC and DWP are different, but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that DESNZ assumes that 28% of people will not get this discount despite the other matter. I am sure that the Government will get the other Minister—the one from DESNZ—to reply, but I am grateful to this Minister for her responses so far.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that we can comb through Hansard and make sure that proper, detailed information is provided to the noble Baroness on the issues that she raised.
This scheme has been running for 14 years now. Over that time, more than £4 billion-worth of direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will build on that legacy by allowing support to reach more people this winter, including vulnerable households that were previously shut out of the scheme.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I have a point of clarification. The Minister responded to me most kindly about how the Government are going to invest in SMRs. I know that, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—a former Secretary of State for Energy—were here, he would stand up and say, “I’m speaking to all the SMR providers. They’re saying to me that they are ready to go. They’re doing it with other countries, but they need more progress from the UK”. Can the Minister come back to us at some point with a bit more detail on when are we going to see some progress with the SMRs? What is holding us back? Can we action this urgently?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Earl and his colleagues are aware that we have made a very strong commitment to nuclear energy and are pushing forward on that in a way that previous Governments have not done. It is really important that we are investing in nuclear energy with that commitment. The department is working up exactly what that will look like; I am sure that, when the time is right, the noble Earl and his colleagues will hear more about SMRs.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
In moving these regulations, I shall speak also to the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.
These two technical instruments make practical changes that allow the Government to complete reforms to banking and wholesale markets regulation. Collectively, they ensure that our legislation for financial services remains effective and brings these areas of regulation in line with the model of regulation set by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—the FSMA model. The instruments do not introduce new burdens or policy for firms, and the changes have been widely supported by industry.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 repealed assimilated law relating to financial services, subject to commencement by the Treasury. This approach allows our expert and independent regulators to replace detailed rules currently set in legislation with flexible, UK-tailored standards.
I will first address the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. Noble Lords will be aware that banks are required to hold capital buffers, in addition to minimum capital requirements, to ensure that they have sufficient capacity to absorb losses while continuing to lend to the economy, even in times of stress. This short, technical instrument updates references to the capital buffer regulations in other legislation now that the underlying regulations have been restated through the powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
The process to bring the capital buffer regulations in line with the FSMA model does three things. First, it revokes the 2014 capital buffers regulations—a piece of assimilated law that, under our FSMA model of regulation, is better situated in regulator rules. The Government are therefore replacing some of the revoked provisions with rules designed and maintained by the Prudential Regulation Authority and have restated a limited number of regulations that need to remain in legislation, with some operational improvements.
Secondly, it gives the Prudential Regulation Authority additional flexibility in setting two capital buffers that are derived from rules set internationally by the Basel committee: the capital conservation buffer and the global systemically important institutions, or GSII, buffer. Those buffers will now be set through PRA rule making rather than through legislation, upholding international standards while increasing the flexibility of regulation.
Thirdly, it preserves in legislation the policy frameworks of the two capital buffers that are set by the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee—the counter- cyclical capital buffer and the other systemically important institutions buffer—which will ensure that the FPC has a clear statutory basis on which to deploy these tools. It also makes operational modifications to improve the effectiveness of the framework by, for example, allowing the FPC to set the countercyclical capital buffer off-cycle, rather than being restricted to its quarterly setting, in case of a financial system emergency.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining what he identified as a very technical and detailed set of two instruments. I came into the Committee not sure whether I was going to speak or not. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s tone and, as I was doing that, I was looking at the Bank of England’s financial stability report from July 2025. It said that uncertainty around the global outlook has intensified. It says of financial markets that they have been highly volatile. Weakness in non-bank finance can amplify risk. It says of UK households and businesses that, overall, they continue to be resilient. I am not quite sure that that, particularly the last one on households, reflects the experience that many people who are listening to this Committee have—if they are very bored this afternoon. None the less, there we are.
Some of the things that the Minister said in the introduction concerned me slightly. One of them started with “widely supported by industry”. We are hopefully thinking about the national interest rather than just the interests of the financial sector and, perhaps, the wilder reaches of the financial sector. It was described as essential for companies operating these core businesses. We are talking about complex financial instrument derivatives here. From the words of the Minister, it is clear that the Government are heading in the same direction as the previous Government.
Of course, not just the apparent complexion of the Government but the global situation has changed tremendously, so I have one question for the Minister. Are the Government keeping under constant review the foundational conditions in which the financial sector is operating and ensuring that everything they do is not increasing the level of risks that the financial sector presents to the security of us all?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that these two statutory instruments deal with technical measures and in and of themselves have limited impact. They are essentially a tidy-up of the text to reflect broader changes made since Brexit to the financial regulatory system. The FSMA 2023 SI transfers to the PRA responsibility for setting the capital buffers that banks are required to hold in addition to minimum capital requirements. The PRA is a strong regulator, but it has taken a series of measures to move in the direction of lighter touch, motivated by its competitiveness and growth objective. I have spoken before about my concern that the PRA, for example, is increasingly willing to turn a blind eye to the illiquidity of assets. When powers are transferred to the PRA, as they are by this SI, a significant measure of transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight disappears. Capital buffers are critical to the stability of the banking system, and I remain concerned when parliamentary oversight in this key area is significantly weakened, as it is by the measures that both surround and are then captured by this SI.
The second statutory instrument deals with the markets in financial instruments and again affects a transfer of power and responsibility, this time to both the FCA and the PRA. Once again, it is a move to a less transparent and less accountable system. The rules can now be changed, presumably in line with the smarter regulatory framework that the Government have put forward, and they both allow divergence from the EU and a lighter-touch approach. Divergence has its own risk, as it has implications for cross-border business, and Parliament will not have a voice any more than as a significant consultee. Frankly, experience suggests that the regulators look at Parliament’s views in these consultations and treat them as relatively irrelevant compared to the views of industry.
I note that the Minister described the regulators as expert, independent regulators. He would have used exactly that same phrasing before the 2007 crash, and we still live with the repercussions of that crash. Blind trust in the regulator is exceedingly inadvisable. I have tried in previous speeches to list some of the erosions of protections that were introduced after the crash. They include: the competitiveness and growth objective for regulators; the changing to matching adjustment; insolvency UK; significantly increasing the illiquidity of the insurance sector; the removal of the cap on bankers’ bonuses; the permanent permission for pension funds to transact derivatives without using central counterparties, thereby avoiding putting in place margin collateral, which puts them seriously at risk in any kind of financial volatility in unstable times; the watering down of the senior managers’ regime, which is key to accountability; the weakening of the financial ombudsman; the pressure on pension funds to invest in high-risk, illiquid assets; and the uncertainty that now exists around bank ring-fencing.
That is a partial list of the erosions that I have been able to pick up, and I am sure that, if the Government sat down and thought about it, they could come up with a far longer list and perhaps even suggest that this was a huge positive. But it is notable that Parliament will have no further say, now that these SIs have gone through, any more than just an ordinary consultee, in a further erosion of these various protections. Frankly, while Parliament will get reports that will allow it to look at the impact, that will be very much in retrospect, which I suggest is very late in the day.
I repeat a request that I have made before for the Government to publish a compendium of the changes that have been made that increase risk in the financial sector and a look at those risk implications. My view is that, without that degree of transparency, Parliament cannot do its proper job.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of these statutory instruments and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her gloss on that.
Today we are considering the instrument on capital buffers as well as the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations. While each is described as largely technical, both help to shape the future of our financial regulatory framework. Obviously we on these Benches are happy to consider them together and to raise some questions about how they link to the Government’s wider ambitions for stability, innovation and growth.
We recognise that both instruments form part of the wider process of revoking retained EU law and restating and embedding that in the smarter regulatory framework under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. It is important that our regime is clear and coherent and reflects the institutional responsibilities of the regulators, whether the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee or the Financial Conduct Authority.
For me, the most important current issue for the financial regulators is whether they are really adjusting their rules, their outlook and their culture to pursue growth and competitiveness, as they were recently required to do. Is the Minister in a position to assure us that the PRA and FCA have taken vigorous action to meet the Government’s requests and instructions on this vital point? I recall that the Chancellor wrote to them last autumn. What were the key demands, and what did they do in reply? What are the opportunities for growth, bearing in mind the current challenges outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Kramer? Although I do not agree with all that they said, I think it is important to debate that.
I have a few other questions. On capital buffers, while the instrument is described as technical, it involves substantive changes in transferring responsibility for buffers, such as the capital conservation buffer and the global systemically important institutions buffer, to the PRA. Can the Minister clarify how the Government will ensure sufficient parliamentary oversight of these crucial prudential tools, now that they will be set directly by the regulator? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, it is now a less transparent system, so Parliament needs a strong voice in the post-EU world.
Of course, capital buffers are at the heart of keeping our financial system stable. We learned in painful ways during the financial crisis what happens when banks lack the resilience that they need in times of stress. The framework we have now is well established, but risks are evolving all the time. Can the Minister share the Government’s view on whether today’s capital requirements are still fit for purpose, particularly in the light of the growing challenges from shadow banking, digital assets and climate-related exposures?
We note that the second instrument retains certain key definitions from the MiFID organisational regulation, while paving the way, as the Minister said, for the revocation of firm-facing provisions. The intention is to allow the FCA and the PRA to take forward responsibility for detailed rules, tailoring them more closely to the needs of the UK market. The Minister has explained the rationale for that, but I ask him to expand on how these changes will not only safeguard market integrity and, I think he said, prevent the gaps that might arise—but encourage innovation and investment and growth, which I think we all agree that we need if the economy is to move forward positively.
What steps will the Treasury take to ensure that regulators’ rule-making in this area is aligned with the broader ambition of using financial services as a driver of economic prosperity, the point I addressed earlier?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions and remarks on what are really technical issues. There is no real policy change, but the issues are none the less important. As the noble Baronesses said, one of the key issues is that we want to ensure that the economy grows. As far as our financial regulation infrastructure is concerned, it is always welcome to have heard from the IMF that the architecture that we have now is some of the best of its kind in the world. The IMF also endorsed the Government’s fiscal plans as striking
“a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the Government are committed to upholding financial stability, which is a prerequisite of our position as a leading global financial centre. This is about rebalancing our approach to risk and pushing back on some of the mission creep that we have seen over the past decade. There is scope to do this while continuing to protect financial stability, and obviously we will always keep this under review, which was one of the noble Baroness’s questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about parliamentary scrutiny and how Parliament will continue to scrutinise what the FCA and the PRA are going to do. They are independent non-governmental organisations and their independence is vital to their role. However, they are fully accountable to the Government and Parliament for how they exercise their functions, and this accountability is critical to ensure that they are advancing the objectives given to them by Parliament and performing at the optimum.
There were other questions about whether we are giving regulators too much power. We do not believe we are. We have a flexible system. Some of it is still going to be in legislation; some of it is going to be in regulation. The flexibility is there to ensure that the one thing that we create is growth in the economy. To the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I say it helps to deliver growth because growth is our ultimate ambition. To achieve this, the Government have announced the most extensive package of financial service reforms in over a decade. Reform will unlock growth by increasing the global competitiveness of the sector, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, spurring the sector’s confidence and boosting innovation and opportunities, which is one of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. Obviously, it is about flexibility, and we need to ensure that we remain flexible in our approach to these regulations and continue to keep them under review.
We believe that these technical statutory instruments do that. It will be for the FCA and the PRA to decide how to streamline and improve their rulebooks. The FCA has already published a discussion paper seeking views on organisational and conduct rules that could be removed or simplified. It has also announced work to review who can be treated as a professional investor, another key plank of the current framework.
I hope this answers many of the questions that were asked. If there are any that I have left out, I am sure that we can write to noble Lords.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That was extremely helpful, especially the direction of travel in terms of reform. I would be very interested to know what the growth questions to the PRA and the FCA were. The letters were written last autumn. The Minister has repeated the vision, as it were, and has talked about flexibility, which can be very useful. If the Minister could reflect a bit further on that and on transparency—emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—that would be great. Are the regulators being transparent in the way that they move forward? That is another way that we are able to feed in and criticise if we are not happy.
My other point perhaps goes wider than this debate, but I asked how the Government were getting on with the process of making these post-EU regulations. I do not know whether the Minister can answer that now, but if not, it would be helpful to hear separately on that.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I do not know exactly where we are with working our way through the EU regulations et cetera and decoupling where we think it is necessary to decouple. I am sure that we can write in some respects. I am sure that we will be doing it diligently in the best interests of the UK and our international standing. On the other issues, I should have mentioned the Leeds reforms which were mentioned on 15 July. The changes will help UK banks to compete internationally and provide the vital investment required to drive growth in the economy. We are implementing the Basel III.1 arrangements on international banking by delaying investment banking requirements until 2028 and implementing other requirements in 2027 and communicating that the Treasury will avoid ring-fencing and that the PRA will undertake a review and report by early 2026. There is a lot going on in this area. The Leeds reforms are critical to that. What drives all this is the fact that we are pursuing growth. That is the one thing that we want to achieve.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I support the objective of growth. I used to be a Treasury Minister and I know that the Treasury will move forward, but it would be good to get this process done.
Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Football Governance Act 2025: Implementation
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will set out a timetable for the implementation of the various parts of the Football Governance Act 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Every effort is being made to ensure that the independent football regulator is up and running as soon as possible. This includes consultation with industry and passing essential secondary legislation required for the regulator to carry out its functions. There are some important milestones coming up, including the recruitment of a CEO and the appointment of the regulator’s board. A shadow regulator team is already in place, carrying out the preparatory work required to ensure the regulator is operational as quickly as possible.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s reply, and perhaps I should declare my interest as the only known member of the Brighton & Hove Albion (Lords) Supporters’ Club. Given the Euros success of the Lionesses this summer, the upcoming expanded Women’s Super League and the growth of the women’s transfer market, does the Minister foresee a time when the women’s game will need to enter a system of regulation? Also, can the Minister say how the Government see the role of the regulator developing to tackle the problems experienced this summer by Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe FC?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Alongside millions across the country, I was really proud to watch the Lionesses’ victory this summer, and I hope this continues to grow the game and inspire girls across the country. Karen Carney OBE led an independent review of domestic women’s football, published in July 2023. We agree with the recommendation that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate, rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation. Should it be appropriate to do so in the future, we could include the women’s game. On Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe, it is precisely because of such situations that we took decisive action to introduce the Football Governance Act.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the nomination of David Kogan as the new football regulator has been widely welcomed in football and beyond—his capability and deep knowledge of the game are well recognised. Mr Kogan’s appointment was first announced in April, but four months later he is yet to be confirmed. The uncertainty affecting Morecambe FC and Sheffield Wednesday over the summer, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, just referred, amply underlines why the sooner we have a football regulator up and running, with a chair, a board and an executive, the better. When does the Minister think this will all happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was delighted to see David Kogan endorsed as the Government’s preferred candidate for chair of the regulator. David was subject to a pre-appointment hearing with the CMS Select Committee on 7 May, giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise this important appointment before it is made. The committee endorsed David’s appointment, noting his extensive football and media experience. As noble Lords will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments is conducting an inquiry into the process and DCMS is co-operating fully. No conclusion has been reached at this stage and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s observation about the women’s football team, I take the opportunity to welcome and congratulate the Rugby Football Union on the excellent start to the Women’s Rugby World Cup tournament. Rick Parry, the chairman of the EFL, at a meeting of an all-party group on football a few months back, commented that he saw that the necessity in terms of regulation in this country and the numbers employed should be somewhere between six and 99—preferably closer to six. Does the Minister agree with Mr Parry’s observation? If not, why not?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Does the noble Lord mean in relation to how many people are employed by the regulator? To be honest, that will be largely down to the incoming regulator itself. As the noble Lord will be aware from our lengthy discussions during the passage through Parliament of the Bill, now an Act, there is a broad understanding of what we think the overall operational costs will be. We put them at around £8 million to £10 million. Clearly, the staffing costs, as well as other operational costs, would need to come within that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Government give us further reassurance that they will not only look at the body they have created and make sure that it is functioning quickly but give it the backing it will need to take on vested interests? We have this periodic disaster in which people nearly lose their clubs again and again; we have had it in the past, and we are supposed to be getting rid of it. Do the Government agree?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Football Governance Act 2025 was put in place exactly to address the issues that the noble Lord identifies. As I said in my initial Answer, to make sure that we do not see any repeat of previous issues, every effort is being made to ensure that the independent football regulator is up and running as soon as possible. It is vital to ensure that we get the regulator on a firm footing and able to address the issues facing the game.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Sheffield Wednesday supporter. I think that noble Lords will understand why I am returning to the issue of what is unfolding as a Greek tragedy. The solidarity payments paid wages for August, but a tragedy is unfolding in front of us. I make an appeal to my noble friend and to the Secretary of State to move beyond the normal speed with which the Civil Service works, which I remember very well. This is not a matter of the great phrase “working at pace”; it is about getting people off their bums and getting this regulator up and running this autumn. If we do not, the impact on the pyramid and the league will be considerable.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend might observe that I did not use the term “working at pace”, which as it happens was in the original draft of my initial response. In all seriousness, though, we understand and share my noble friend’s concerns. We are keen for the current ownership to bring the issues facing Sheffield Wednesday—we do not underestimate them—to an appropriate resolution as quickly as possible. The Minister for Sport has already spoken with Clive Betts MP, who has been a strong advocate, as have others, for Sheffield Wednesday. The Minister for Sport is also meeting the Sheffield Wednesday Supporters’ Trust on 8 September.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, as everyone seems to be registering an interest, I will register one as a Liverpool football fan. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am not alone. The transfer window, which has just closed, was a great success, especially for Liverpool. The Premier League continues to be a great success. I urge the Government and the Minister to urge the regulator not to tinker with this great British success, the Premier League.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Clearly, we are really proud of the Premier League and of English and British football. It is our national game. However, the genesis of the Football Governance Act was based on some real issues within the game of football and the entire pyramid, and I expect and anticipate that the chair of the regulator will see these as a key priority, while not undermining the competitiveness of the Premier League.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to single out clubs such as Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday as outliers or exceptional? I say that because, in the last two seasons, all 24 clubs in our second tier—the EFL Championship—have generated operating losses, with wage bills continuing to spiral. The clubs together now carry a debt of £1.5 billion. Time is surely not on the regulator’s side.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This is exactly why we intend to get the regulator up as quickly as possible.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many people across football are looking forward to working with David Kogan, but one of the difficulties that he and the new independent regulator have is that the process for appointing him is still under investigation by the commissioner for public standards. Has Mr Kogan been able to start his work, pending the outcome of that investigation? Has the noble Baroness’s department been given any indication of how much longer it might continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I should not comment on the inquiry being carried out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—as I said earlier, this is ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that David Kogan has met a number of Members of this House, and he is fully engaged with the task ahead at the point at which he is able to be appointed formally.
Open Artificial Intelligence Service
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will explore the possibility of establishing an entity to provide a sovereign open artificial intelligence service on a public-private partnership basis with shares open to British citizens.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government are committed to building sovereign AI capabilities spanning hardware, software and data, and they have established a sovereign AI unit. This is backed by up to £500 million. The unit will advance UK strategic interests through supporting promising companies. We recently published the compute road map, setting out plans to build cutting-edge, secure and sustainable AI infrastructure, and of course there is the National Data Library. We will explore novel commercial structures, such as public/private partnerships, as part of that delivery model.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the conversations he has had with me and for the report he has just given. While we research, others, like the Indians, already understand the sovereignty question. They are now finding ways of funding and launching their own national AI systems, scheduled probably for next year. I know the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been at meetings where the Treasury, responsible for AI developments, has indicated surprise that there is pressure for a national sovereign movement. Can we make sure that the Treasury is not taking a long, slow view on this? Can we also make sure that we are exploring all the opportunities open to us to bring more people into creating public/private partnerships in a new way, quite unlike what we have done before, in order to ensure that parents, particularly, can see that the UK is developing an AI system for their children in which they can place their trust?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
A lot is going on. What is being considered is investment in companies, but things that have happened include the formation of a new AI computer infrastructure—Isambard-AI went live this summer. The AI Security Institute is determined to make sure that we have the ability to look at risks of future models, and of course there is the National Data Library. So, there is a lot in train and a lot of sovereign capability is being built. The next phase is to make sure that we have investment for companies that are developing the latest models in the UK.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in register, not least as adviser on AI to the Crown Estate and Endava plc. Public engagement and public trust are critical to the success of sovereign AI—indeed, critical to the success of all AI. What are the Government doing to engage the public with their sovereign AI aspirations, and to build on that public engagement? Can the Minister inform the House when the consultation paper on the proposed AI Bill will be published—September?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The sovereign AI unit is already publishing what it does on its website and consulting very broadly. As the noble Lord knows, there is a consultation on the AI Bill. I can confirm that it will not be September, but I cannot confirm beyond that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this kind of citizen ownership clearly has attractions in terms of developing public trust, developing AI for public benefit, and being an antidote to big-tech concentration. But does not open-source AI represent a more straightforward path to AI sovereignty? This avoids the need for massive capital investment in model training and enables new models to be created using UK expertise. Will the Government, through the sovereign AI unit, incentivise and support this approach, perhaps in tandem with the concept of citizen ownership?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord rightly says, the open AI approach—I mean the general approach to openness, not the company—has been an important part of how this has progressed so rapidly and will be an important part of what we do going forward. We need partnerships where necessary in order to access existing models, but we also need to develop our accompanying hardware, data and skills domestic infrastructure. We will continue to view openness as an important part of how we do that.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests and my interest in supporting AI businesses. The Government’s view on sovereign AI must be adjusted with the view that sovereign AI will be designed by the available data and the Government’s data. What is the Government’s view about how that data will be made accessible to private industry? Secondly, how are the Government proceeding on the AI growth zones, which will help different parts of the country significantly? When can we hear about that?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: data is fundamental. People often think of this as being just about the algorithms, but you need the data, the algorithms, the hardware and the skills to come together. The National Data Library is being formed. The Health Data Research Service, which will get health data in the right place, is now advertising for the CEO and chair and is designed to bring together data in a much more accessible and usable way, ultimately for the benefit of patients and the NHS, in that instance. The short-listing on AI growth zones has taken place. We already know that one will be in Culham; the others will be announced shortly.
Lord Fox (LD)
When the Minister listed things that were happening, he listed a bunch of institutions, but he did not mention the Alan Turing Institute. What should be a powerhouse of sovereign capability in this country seems to be descending into chaos and internecine struggle. What are the Government doing to try to sort out this really important institution?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The Alan Turing Institute is of course an independent institution. In 2023, a quinquennial review determined that it needed significant changes, and those changes have been taking place. They will be ongoing and there is indeed a plan to make sure that the institute is able to deliver AI for missions that are important for the Government, whether that is defence, which has been mentioned, or climate and healthcare. I am confident that the institute will get to a place where it is much more able to have the engineering expertise to deliver products that will be of value.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, to build on the excellent question of my noble friend Lord Holmes, I was concerned this morning to be presented with some research to the effect that Britons are among the most nervous about AI of any population. To what does the Minister attribute this falling off in our level of confidence about AI, and what steps do the Government envisage taking to address it going forward?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am tempted to refer back to surveys I used to see when I worked in a global company, which always came out worse for the UK than anywhere else in the world. But this is a very real issue, and there are major concerns about some aspects of AI. My worry is that we do not concentrate enough on the benefits and articulate those. We have work to do to make it clear that this is going to benefit people and is not just something to worry about; it is going to be beneficial right across the sectors, including in health. We have work to do to get that message out and to ensure that it is understood and believed.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
The Minister is right that it will be beneficial, but what thought are the Government giving to developments in some of these businesses—for example, using AI to create digital clones of their employees, and the implications of that for employees’ moral rights over their own name, likeness, attributes and character? Have the Government given some thought to ensuring that human rights are also considered when AI policy is under consideration?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The AI Security Institute was set up to look at the potential risk of new models. It works closely with model developers and gets access to models early, tests them for things that might be problematic, and is an important source of identifying possible issues. There are of course much broader questions, such as the one that has just been asked, which are beyond what happens inside government. That is why the work the Alan Turing Institute started, looking at some of those issues, is important. I am very pleased that many of the people who led that are now being established in academic positions and will continue to address these very important questions as we go forward.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, we have heard repeatedly about the importance of data to the success of our AI industries. We are also well aware that people’s relationship with AI is very much guided by the fear of their data being misused. I understand that Sir Tim Berners-Lee is looking closely at this issue and how we return the ownership of our data to us as individuals from companies that are harvesting it and using it without our consent. What are the Government doing to pursue this and to look at how we as citizens can control our own data in this new AI world?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Of course, this is a major issue, particularly in health data. I was intrigued when speaking recently to colleagues in Denmark. They made the point that they have a very simple message: they provide a health service free of charge, and in return citizens of Denmark are expected to provide their data to improve that service, but they still own the data. The question of how we manage that with data ownership in the UK, in health and beyond, is one of the things the National Data Library and Health Data Research UK will have uppermost in their minds as they develop their services.
Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the government of the Republic of Ireland on defence co-operation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, in 2025 there have been a number of discussions between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on defence. The Permanent Secretary visited Ireland in January; the Chief of the Defence Staff visited in February, marking the first visit of a Chief of the Defence Staff to Ireland since 2016; and the Second Permanent Secretary visited in April. Irish Ministers met UK Defence Ministers under the wider coalition of the willing meetings held over the course of the year.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Does he agree that it is important that the British public understand just how much support the Irish Government get from the United Kingdom and NATO for their defence capabilities, and that they keep their neutrality without having to pay any contributions? I am not asking the Minister to send them a bill, but does he agree that there could be more co-operation on other aspects? The hostile state of the Irish Government is taking the United Kingdom to court on the legacy Bill and refuses to be involved in trying to get much more information about some of the terrible atrocities, when the IRA went across the border. The next time he meets the Irish Government, will the Minister tell them that co-operation is a two-way process?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I start by saying as a Defence Minister how proud we all have been of the contribution of the British Armed Forces to what took place in Northern Ireland. That is the starting point for any discussion. The noble Baroness will have seen the comments by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this morning, where he talked about being close to an agreement with the Irish Government on dealing with the legacy of the past. As far as the broader points on defence co-operation that the noble Baroness makes, she will be pleased to know that we are seeking to establish a new memorandum of understanding between the UK and the Irish Government by next year.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, to echo the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, it is the case that our defence capability exists primarily for the protection of this country and to enable our contribution to global security, particularly through NATO. Indirectly, the Republic of Ireland has benefited greatly from that strategic stance over many years. If, as the Minister has indicated, there is now an intention to enter into discussions with the Republic of Ireland, perhaps to refresh and renew the memorandum of understanding, does he agree that that would require to be underpinned by an appropriate financial arrangement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that there has been a memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the United Kingdom since 2015. Michael Fallon and Simon Coveney signed an agreement in 2015 on defence co-operation between the two countries, while respecting Ireland's neutrality and the fact that it is not a member of NATO. Like many countries across the whole of Europe, whether in NATO or outside, Ireland has been forced to confront the reality of what we face. Like every country, including our own, it is increasing defence spending and looking at what more it can do, not least, as I say, through a refreshed memorandum of understanding between us and the Irish Government, which we hope to be in place during 2026.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentions that Ireland might increase defence spending. There is no doubt that, through the Second World War and the Cold War, in effect the United Kingdom made sure the defence of Ireland was secure, with almost no contribution from Ireland. We are now in a very dangerous world. If one looks at Norway and Ireland, which have about the same population, one finds that Ireland has 719 people in its navy while Norway has 4,000, and that Ireland has four coastal patrol craft while Norway has 69. Is it not time that we made it clear to the Irish that, in this globally dangerous world, they have to make an appropriate contribution to defence?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are witnessing the recognition on the part of Ireland that the changed environment in which it finds itself requires attention. These are decisions for the Irish Government. Like all Governments across Europe, they are looking at the changed geopolitical environment and the strains and stresses that puts on the defence of their own country. Discussions are taking place, in an appropriate way, between us and Ireland about what we can do around, for example, critical underwater infrastructure. Ireland is also looking at establishing its own radar capability. There are signs that Ireland is looking at what it can do to enhance its own defence and security.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the UK and the European Union had a rapprochement over security and defence in May of this year. Is there scope through that to begin to work bilaterally with Ireland within the realms of Ireland’s ongoing neutrality? That might be a way of ensuring that Ireland can begin to step up to the plate without saying to it, “Please write a cheque”, which seems to be mood of some of the Benches in your Lordships’ House. Keir Starmer is probably not going to be able to say to the Taoiseach, “Please can you sign a Eurocheque?”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Keir Starmer and the Taoiseach agreed, just a few months ago in Liverpool, that there should be a new memorandum of understanding, one pillar of which should be defence and security. That is a major step forward. It is important not only for the security of Ireland—and those are choices that it makes for itself—but for our security and the defence of Europe.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to the register and declare my interest as chair of a precision engineering company in Northern Ireland. In Policy Exchange’s excellent paper Closing the Back Door, there is a very clear acknowledgement of the strategic importance of Northern Ireland for the defence of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Minister knows well the defence scene in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, as well as geography, Northern Ireland has much to offer the UK defence strategy, especially as the SME supply chain moves into the UK defence scene?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree very much with the noble Baroness on the importance of Northern Ireland, with respect to not only its geography but the skills and commitment contributed by the people of Northern Ireland to industrial development. This is from not only the big companies we talk about, such as Thales, and the multibillion pound investment going into it, but the small and medium-sized companies which also make a massive contribution. The noble Baroness is a great champion of those and she should continue as such.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, the matter of transparency affects not only the people of the United Kingdom but the people of the Irish Republic. Does the Minister agree that it would help the debate—which is now more sophisticated and intense in the Irish Republic—about NATO and neutrality if we could be very open in the United Kingdom about the scale of the work that already goes on, which includes the areas that have been mentioned and many others, in which the United Kingdom helps the defence of the Irish Republic?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that. The memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Department of Defence in Ireland, in which a whole range of co-operative measures about how we work together were laid out and agreed by two sovereign Governments, was done in 2015 and was updated and refreshed in 2025, so that we have a fresh memorandum of understanding for 2026. That is something to be celebrated in Ireland and in the United Kingdom.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, given the relative military and defensive weakness of Ireland on our western flank and the enhanced nature of the threats that we currently face, does the highly respected Minister agree that, in view of its contribution to our defence, Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom is a vital strategic interest?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord knows the arrangement with respect to Northern Ireland and its place within the United Kingdom. On his broader point about the importance of the Armed Forces, I was in Newtownards to celebrate and mark Armed Forces Day, and there were over 50,000 people there. I know the noble Lord has done similar things in the past.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, what discussions have taken place between the UK Government and the Irish Government regarding the protection of the ECHR and the Good Friday agreement, both of which are intrinsic and inseparable? Following suggestions by a Member of the other place that the Good Friday agreement could be renegotiated—which in my opinion is total nonsense—what is the view of the UK Government?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her point. Last week, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said—I quote directly—:
“Let’s be clear: the ECHR underpins key international agreements on trade, security, migration and the Good Friday agreement”.
That encapsulates government policy on this and answers very clearly my noble friend’s question about the importance of the ECHR.
Nitrous Oxide Misuse: Drivers
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address nitrous oxide misuse among drivers in urban areas.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, an individual is guilty of an offence if their ability to drive is being impaired by drink or drugs. The Government take road safety extremely seriously and are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed or injured on our roads. A number of police operations have focused on enforcement of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but given the serious increase in this apparent trend of inhaling nitrous oxide through balloons while driving and the deadly danger this presents on our roads, what assessment have the Government made regarding additional powers and tools that may be needed to help detect and deter such drug-impaired driving?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an extremely important point. From the Department for Transport’s perspective, rather than that of the Home Office, which I answer for, there is currently development of a further road strategy. As part of that, the Government are considering a range of policies relating to motoring offences, such as drink-driving and drug-driving, and other matters of concern that have been raised. That strategy will be before Parliament and this House in an appropriate time.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, what assessment, if any, have the Government made of the increase in the number of young people using nitrous oxide seeking medical assistance? There seems to be a trend of fewer young people but of their using bigger cylinders so inhaling more—more acute use. What assessment have the Government made and what intervention could they make to break this trend?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. The figures for the last 12 months, which may help, show that 0.9% of adults aged 16 to 59 years old have been reported as using nitrous oxide in the past year. That sounds like a small number, but it is quite a significant number of individuals. We need to look at health advice at appropriate places, as well as at education and support from peer groups and parents. I know from my experience a long time before I entered Parliament, when I worked in the field of drug prevention, that the key thing is to ensure we have action on peer group pressure, education and health advice. To back that up, under legislation passed by the previous Government, nitrous oxide is now a controlled drug. Therefore, there is also the potential for police enforcement activity, which relates back to the initial Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, a close family member works for a fast-food drive-through takeaway, and she was telling me over the weekend about the amount of abuse she receives from drug-drivers taking nitrous oxide openly in front of her, using balloons. I asked what the standard operating procedure was for reporting this to the management of the retail outlet. She said that she reports it to the manager, who then reports it to the police. I am sorry to say that when it is reported to the police, there is no action. An idea for the police is to use facial recognition. We have had discussions in this House about facial recognition in retail outlets to stop shoplifters. Could we do the same thing in this case or suggest that the Minister looks into it, so that those people cannot get away with abuse of female workers in retail outlets?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is not acceptable to have that level of abuse, and it not acceptable for people to blatantly break the law. It may interest him that 378 individuals were prosecuted for offences related to nitrous oxide possession or trafficking last year. Of those 378, 240 were convicted. It is an important issue.
Just for the information of the House, it is quite difficult for the police to identify nitrous oxide later on because it disappears from the blood system very quickly. However, the noble Lord’s point on facial recognition is well made. It is one that the Government are examining in relation to a range of potential uses and there will undoubtedly be further developments during this year.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to a couple of other aspects of nitrous oxide which make this behaviour even more lamentable. First, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. Secondly, in terms of destruction of stratospheric ozone, it is now the largest pollutant. Will that add greater urgency to some action on bearing down on this frivolous and dangerous use?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness can be assured that the Government are taking this matter seriously. As I have mentioned, we are looking at further drug and driving offences, and there is now—following the previous Government’s initiative—a ban on nitrous oxide being used for drug purposes. We need to widen the experience and understanding of that legislation and put some of the preventions in place which the noble Lord mentioned earlier. It is ultimately a matter for chief constables and police and crime commissioners whether they take action and highlight that. It is certainly an act of anti-social behaviour; it also adds to the pollution of the environment, and from my personal experience as a former official of a charity dealing with this, I know that it can lead to death at first use—that is an extremely important issue that people do not realise.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the legislation passed by the previous Government to criminalise the possession of nitrous oxide for recreational use. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party voted against the ban, claiming that drug misuse is a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. We know that Scotland has a significant problem with drug misuse, including some high-profile court cases involving nitrous oxide. Does the Minister agree that the SNP’s lackadaisical approach to tackling drug crime is having a detrimental effect on the safety of the Scottish people?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that drug abuse, and in this case nitrous oxide abuse, is both a public health issue and a criminal justice matter. We have devolution in the United Kingdom, and criminal justice is devolved to Scotland. If I were the Minister in Scotland, I would do something different, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government. I think that there is a small election coming up in the next 12 months, where opinion of the performance of the Scottish National Party Government, of my own party and, dare I say it, of the noble Lord’s as well can be tested.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the cause of the human nitrous oxide business is agriculture, both nitrogen fertilisers and animal waste. While we need to tackle the atmospheric effect of nitrous oxide, we also need to deal with the major source, which is agricultural products.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me into areas which are clearly not part of my responsibilities, but within the bits that I am responsible for, nitrous oxide—with the legislation passed by the previous Government, with opposition support—should be a policing matter and a priority. We are trying to support that. With the addition of 3,000 neighbourhood police officers this year, and another 9,000 to 12,000 over the next three years, there is greater opportunity for police officers to identify where nitrous oxide is being used for illicit purposes locally and to look at potential solutions in areas where balloons are being used in traffic or, indeed, where abuse is given to staff. With intelligence gathering, they can look at acting in an appropriate way to build a community plan to tackle those specific problems in those specific areas to reduce crime, improve public confidence in policing and tackle anti-social behaviour.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I agree with what the Minister just said; it would be wise for the police to look into that. Can he also consider looking at the retail supply of nitrous oxide? Every year, I used to go Notting Hill Carnival, where the floor was littered with small canisters. They have only one or two legal uses: to blow up balloons and, I believe, for whipped cream. My point is that the supply of it far outweighs those two uses; I do not think that there are that many people filling balloons or creating whipped cream. It might not be a bad idea for retail outlets to be checked for the volumes they are selling, because it must be going to kids. There must be some people buying very large amounts, which they are then selling on. I know that sometimes we all plead for more law, but the retailers and manufacturers—because it is not easy stuff to produce and put into canisters—may also be encouraged to take further action themselves.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point about downstream supply. I refer back to the legislation currently in place: it is an offence to possess, use, traffic or supply nitrous oxide in its current form. That is very broad legislation which gives specific powers to police to investigate the type of issue that the noble Lord mentioned. For example, if there were in any particular community excessive use of nitrous oxide, canisters spread all over the place, dens being used and/or trafficking using balloons, my advice—although I cannot give it directly to the police—would be that they might wish to investigate that, with the extra neighbourhood policing support we have given. They could then identify where the supply was coming from and take action, because supplying it is an offence.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129 Running list of amendments - 28 August 2025 - (28 Aug 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employment Rights Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, before the formal Third Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I will make a brief statement on its devolution status.
During the Bill’s development and parliamentary passage, the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved Government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that legislative consent Motions have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has also agreed an LCM that covers the majority of the Bill’s provisions.
However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the social care negotiating body, tabled in my name on Report and accepted by your Lordships’ House, also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled and the Scottish Parliament’s Summer Recess, it has not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now that the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess, and noting that the Bill has the support of the Scottish Government, we are hopeful that the process around this supplementary LCM will progress swiftly.
More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look ahead to its implementation, the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.
Clause 162: Commencement
Amendment
Lord Burns
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, this is a tidying-up amendment and I hope it will not delay the House too long. It is consequential on the House’s decision on Report to leave out Clause 59 on members’ contributions to trade union political funds. The amendment leaves out a now redundant reference to it in the commencement clause. It introduces and involves no new issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for tabling this amendment, which I acknowledge is a simple tidying-up one, following changes made to the Bill on Report. It is non-controversial tidying-up amendment and therefore we are content to accept it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. The Bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in-work poverty. It would benefit millions of people across the country, and this is particularly the case for those in insecure and low-paid employment. As just one example, over 2 million people on zero-hours or lower-hours contracts could benefit from the right to guaranteed hours and to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade strategies, it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth.
Throughout the Bill’s Second Reading, 11 days in Committee and four days on Report, noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have agreed on every issue, I believe we do agree on the importance of the Bill, as well as on the need to improve workers’ rights and level the playing field for good employers. Therefore, I am grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the Chamber, and I would like to thank all noble Lords whom I and my ministerial colleagues have spoken to for their time and wisdom.
To mention every Member of your Lordships’ House whom I have engaged with would risk taking almost as long as Committee did. While I will refrain from doing that, I would like to particularly thank a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the Front Bench. Over the course of the Bill’s passage, we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders, including noble Lords and external bodies. My noble friends have been generous with their time and wisdom, and I owe them a great debt.
Similarly, I must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, all of whom represented from the Dispatch Box in Committee. This represents a whole of government approach to bringing about long-overdue improvements to workers’ rights.
It has been a pleasure debating the Bill’s many clauses with noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, who have continuously made the case on behalf of the Official Opposition, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes contributions in relation to non-disclosure agreements, where I was delighted to see the amendments I brought forward on Report being accepted to introduce a world-leading framework on NDA protections. I would like to say how gratifying it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery to good health.
I also pay particular tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. While of course the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, could never be replaced, the noble Lord was a worthy and often entertaining substitute. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan of Canton, Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister for their valued contributions in relation to seafarers, bereavement leave, trade unions and parental leave, respectively.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that this is Third Reading and I fully support the Bill, but I wanted to take this last opportunity to ask for greater clarification in relation to Clause 30 and its applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is an issue I raised in Committee.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful response in Committee and in the subsequent letter that she wrote. I know that she shares with the sector an interest in ensuring that the Bill does not impose undue burdens on the HE sector, given the key role played by universities in the delivery of the department’s industrial strategy. Universities wholeheartedly support the enactment of the Bill and will be working to ensure fair employment practices are maintained and strengthened. However, as autonomous institutions, universities, unlike other organisations in the public sphere, will be requested to absorb the additional costs that this legislation imposes. In advance of the Bill becoming law, and ahead of the consultation process, I seek further clarity and assurances on behalf of the higher education sector on three specific issues.
First, in her letter, my noble friend indicated that the code would specify to which bodies and to what value of procurement activities Clause 30 would apply. It is possible that the procurement activities of universities are exempted due to their nature and value. Can she elaborate further on this and allay any outstanding concerns in the lead-up to the consultation process? Secondly, it is still not clear whether pensions will also be subject to the “no less favourable” terms, which could result in considerable additional burdens for institutions where there are legacy arrangements in place. Thirdly, there is uncertainty over whether the provisions in Clause 30 would be retrospectively applied. Decisions on both these areas could make a material difference to the extent of financial impact experienced by the higher education sector.
I recognise that these are likely to be significant subjects in the consultation, but if my noble friend is able to provide any reassurances in advance of this process, it would be very much welcomed. The sector is so critical in delivering the skills needed for the UK’s successful future and the hopes and aspirations of communities across the UK.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time, as temporary spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, as my noble friend Lord Fox’s spectre has arrived behind me—and he is a sight to behold.
I begin by thanking various Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, to name but three of many—for the time and patience given to me and our team. They always made time and effort to help me understand not only the process but the logic and reasoning behind the objectives of the Bill, and I genuinely thank them for it. I also thank our political adviser Adam Bull, who had the almost impossible task of turning a helpful Back-Bencher supporting my noble friend Lord Fox and his team into an overnight Front-Bench spokesperson leading our group following my noble friend’s accident. I have no idea how he pulled it off, but somehow he convinced me it was possible and we gave it our best shot, along with my noble friends Lord Palmer, Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Kramer, attempting to be reasonable and proportionate throughout the passage of the Bill.
We on these Benches broadly support the Bill and have said on many occasions that it was long overdue, and we acknowledge the Government’s mandate for this legislation. However, we believe that it could and should be refined to work better for workers and for industry, and urge the Government not to disregard the changes that have been proposed, passed and sent back to the other House without extensive consideration and consultation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this Bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also thank the Ministers for the briefings and meetings, and indeed for the extensive correspondence by letter, that they provided during the course of these proceedings. I also thank the Bill team and the Ministers’ private offices. Further, I place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships’ House who, as the Minister said, enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism. I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these Benches, Abid and Henry, who have been fantastic throughout.
We take a slightly different view as to the Bill. We think it is a terrible Bill. It is terrible for workers, businesses—particularly small businesses—and the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come. Unemployment has risen every single month under this Government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach 5%, which is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip—it is a trend. It is the direct result of misguided economic choices, and if this Bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further.
The Chancellor has deepened the difficulties. Long-term borrowing costs have surged to their highest levels since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent; when set alongside the provisions of this Bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster.
The Bill imposes nothing new except new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by Peninsula, the UK’s largest HR and employment law consultancy, revealed that 68% of respondents believe that this legislation will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims—an inevitability under these provisions, with so-called day one rights and the ill-thought-out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the Government’s own impact assessment confirms those risks.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, confirmed by letter that the Government are funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days, yet the backlog already exceeds 50,000 cases. It does not take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and a half simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal rights will increase claims by around 15%. So, while I commend the Government’s actions in recruiting new judges, the Bill still piles more pressure on to a system that is already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton tells me that the Free Speech Union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.
One cannot help but observe that the Bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the Government’s approach in the handling of the junior doctors’ dispute. By also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as 2%, they are preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no experience of dealing with unions, completely unprepared.
We should be mindful of the darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 1980s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose, for reasons of conscience or necessity, to cross a picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracism. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It is precisely that environment which this Bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it. One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own act of scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here.
At the same time, the Government’s own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity, yet what Ministers fail to acknowledge is that poor productivity is overwhelmingly found in the public sector, where entrenched union practices have eroded efficiency and soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the Government now seek to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation. That will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.
The Bill also takes a regressive step with regard to political funds. The Government propose that contributions to a union’s political fund should once again be made on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the certification officer requires unions to disclose payments above a de minimis threshold of £2,000, and that many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, are recorded in their internal accounts, so it should be no more than a simple matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why, then, was this described by the Minister in her exchange with my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley as a “notable administrative requirement”? Is this to be the His Majesty’s Government’s standard position on disclosure requirements for other organisations in future?
Reference has been made to practices prior to 2016, when opacity prevailed. Yet rather than strengthening transparency, the Government seem intent on encouraging concealment. That is an approach that stands in stark contrast to the regime applied to companies, which must provide full disclosure of political donations. Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is in truth no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the Government are serious about transparency, they should be insisting on openness, not enabling the reverse.
I feel that I should also inform the House that, for reasons best known to itself, an organisation called the General Federation of Trades Unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, a session on what is described as “Employment Rights Bill #2”. Some might say that such a Bill would administer the coup de grâce after the firing squad of this Bill. It also features a session entitled, “¡Viva La Solidaridad! Stand with Latin America Against Trump”. I confess that I laughed when I read that. That is not serious politics; that is infantile and pathetic. If the TUC truly wished to offer international lessons, it might instead examine the havoc that socialist leaders and their trade union counterparts have wreaked on Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity has too often meant shared poverty, collapsing currencies and vanishing investment. We on these Benches are rightly focused on the future of British businesses and their employees, and the TUC should do the same.
I would also like to highlight Clause 30, concerning the right to be accompanied, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has reminded me of what I have been missing while I was in a hospital bed in agony. Can I remind him that the Companion says:
“Any remarks should be brief and should not … reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is back in his place. It is always a pleasure to be on the receiving end of his wit and repartee. He will be very pleased to know that I am winding up. Also, I am complimenting one of his colleagues—he ought to have waited.
Clause 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, was agreed on Report with cross-party support. Like other noble Lords across the House, we urge the Government to keep this provision in the Bill. It offers greater choice and protection for workers. To remove it would be a backward step that would disproportionately harm vulnerable groups, including disabled workers, young people and members of some ethnic minorities. That would be anti employment rights. I trust that Ministers will not seek to undo it.
For all its faults, I am glad that we have been able to make some improvements to this Bill as it leaves your Lordships’ House: retaining the 50% threshold for strike ballots to protect workplace democracy; introducing a right to request guaranteed hours; and ensuring clarity by setting out a clear probationary period and reference period for workplace dismissals, giving employers the certainty that they need. We hope that the Government will consider these amendments carefully in the other place and even take this opportunity to rethink the entirety of the Bill.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will probably not find a lot of favour on this side with what I am about to say. I remind the House that I am the honorary president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, a union that does not go on strike and does not regard militant industrial action as an achievement. A dispute that leads to a loss of work for our employees is a failure, not a success. I also remind the House that 30% of trade union members vote for the Conservative Party. People might say, “Well, there’s something wrong with them”, but I do not think that there is. The truth of the matter is that there is very little politics in trade unionism. Through several years, I have sat on the executive of BALPA, and we just do not discuss politics. Occasionally, things come up where we have to comply with some regulation or other and there may be a discussion, but the discussion is probably about the cost of complying. One of the things that I have noticed is the huge growth in legal fees that the union is dishing out. We are the nearest that the legal profession has got to a recruiting agency. We always seem to be paying KCs a lot of money to get us round the law. I am not aware that our union has ever broken the law.
I hope that we will move forward and regard this Bill as the starting point of a consensual approach to industrial relations. We are all basically on the same side. I mentioned that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. In the pilots’ union, it is over 50%. They are not impressed with this “Punch and Judy” approach to trade union legislation in recent years.
I appeal to all the House, the Government and the Opposition to work to get a consensual basis for trade unionism. I look across and I see my friend Brendan, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who did enormously good work at ACAS, and that is the sort of organisation that we need. It attempts to smooth out the problems that we have in industry. At the end of the day—yes, I am going to wind up—our employees want a wage and our employers want a successful business. We recognise that. This should help to build that up, and I certainly hope that it will. I wish the Bill well.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly improved the Bill during its passage, but it remains a very bad Bill. It is bad for business, which means it is bad for the economy, and it is just terrible for people who want jobs.
It is also a dreadful time to be making such significant changes. The economy is stressed. The Bank of England has failed to tame inflation, and we now have the highest rate in the G7. Speculation abounds about how big the black hole is in the Chancellor’s Budget preparations. Bond markets can see that our economy is in trouble and they have hiked gilt yields to levels not seen since 1998. Sterling is on the slide. It feels like the 1970s all over again.
Businesses are still reeling from the impact of the national insurance increases on top of the significant increases in minimum wage rates. This is already taking its toll. The Resolution Foundation said last month that it reckons the unemployment rate will have increased to 5% this month.
Almost all the employment data are negative. Payroll numbers are down, job vacancies are down, the PMI employment index is down and economic inactivity is up. Against that background, creating new employment rights and going back to 1960s trade union legislation is not far short of suicidal for the economy.
The Government say the Bill will cost £5 billion, adding to employment costs. Most of that will fall on the SME sector. That is bad enough, but the bigger problem is that the Bill will work against economic growth. Instead of job creation, we will have more job destruction.
In the other place, the Government have an opportunity to accept the modest changes that your Lordships’ House has made to the Bill. Those changes are moderate and will not remove all the Bill’s harmful effects, but I hope that the Government will at least take this opportunity to modify the impact of the Bill.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I think we have spent 13 days in this Chamber scrutinising this critical Bill. I salute the Ministers and Front Benches for their stamina and perseverance. The Bill has tested the patience of noble Lords on all sides of this House, so I will not test their patience further by going over the same arguments we heard during Committee and Report—very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and, indeed, pretty much the whole private sector. They are asking, in light of the Bill, how committed the Government really are to delivering on their overriding number one mission—real, sustainable economic growth —and how the Bill will impact on the two crucial ingredients behind growth: job creation and, as we have heard, productivity.
On job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10-year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years. The Bill looks set to accelerate that downward trend. On the need for greater productivity across our 30-million workforce, employers are currently paying, on average, 5% annual wage increases for close to zero productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds in workers’ pockets, but I am afraid that it is as illusory as it is inflationary, and will only contribute to ever-widening black holes.
The Bill will, as the Government admit, push up even further the costs of employment and damage the risk/reward equations behind recruitment, probation and employers’ ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews for staff. That is bad news for productivity, and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will respond to my noble friend Lady Warwick about Universities UK’s concerns. Given the stage of the parliamentary passage that the Bill has reached and the fact that the House has agreed that Clause 36 should stand part of the Bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as my noble friend knows, I have written to her on this issue, and the letter is available for all Members to read. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and, to this end, we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two-tier code. The consultation will consider the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. While I cannot comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation, I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applying to higher education providers.
Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his kind comments. I think it is fair to say that we have enjoyed working with him.
I am sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had, up until this point, had very courteous discussions around all this. The fact that there are relatively few issues remaining between us is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue. I hope that, because there are so few areas of continuing disagreement, we can reach a conclusion on this Bill very quickly.
I do not want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. Listening to this debate this afternoon, it is a miracle that only 10 or so issues are still outstanding because it feels as if we are back at square one. But I feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions.
When we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights that were way out of date. We have been working and continue to work to address these issues. We are doing it in all sorts of ways. The small business strategy that we launched over the summer, the industrial strategy and the trade strategy are all designed to make the UK a place to do business with on an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future.
On the state of the economy—because I have been provoked on this—in the three months to June, GDP grew by 0.3%, meaning the cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the OBR’s forecast for the whole of 2025. Since the start of the Parliament, 380,000 jobs have been added. Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, joint top with India following its deal with the US. The FTSE 100 index smashed through the 9,000-point mark this July, with sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at their fastest rate since the last election, according to research from NatWest. Confidence among UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment, according to the Lloyds Business Barometer. I could go on.
We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and, in that context, we are positive about the jobs that will be provided. They will be good jobs where people feel that they have a stake in their employment and a positive future. I am sorry we ended up on that discordant note, and of course I am sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name and that of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. In so doing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Dubs, who, in my absence, moved and spoke to amendments in my name. He did so with characteristic thoughtfulness, eloquence and rigour, and I am pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude. I am also pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who was willing to move and speak to Amendment 104 on 10 July, had he not been defeated by time.
This amendment seeks to do something essentially very simple to the Bill that is before the Committee and the legislation it relates to. However, I hope that the Committee will bear with me as in some ways it requires a complicated explanation—I will do my best not to complicate it even more. Essentially, it seeks to repeal Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act and, in so doing, remove certain anomalies, which I will come to.
Section 59 extends the current inadmissibility process for certain asylum claims and other human rights claims from what was, initially, broadly nationals or those who came from the EEA states, one or two other European states and other countries that are deemed safe. The mechanism for this in Section 59 is a list of safe states—countries from which an asylum or human rights claim must be declared inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply. That list can be added to, and the list that was originally drafted in the clause was increased to include India and Georgia by regulations that were laid on 8 November 2023.
I could detain the Committee for quite a time explaining the state these countries were in in respect of human rights on that date. I will read, in short, from the United States’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Georgia—that is the source of the information and noble Lords can find it and read it for themselves. I will read only two of about seven lines:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: torture or inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrest or incarcerations; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary, along with investigations and prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media”.
The first three lines of the United States’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India included the following:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by police and prison officials; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy”.
I will stop there—that is enough. There are many other lines that come with that.
Despite this and other information from other sources, the then Government thought that these two countries were candidates for a list of safe states, and therefore places from which certain asylum or human rights claims would be declared inadmissible.
I believe that this amendment to repeal this is in harmony with the animating spirit of this legislation. Repealing Section 59 would terminate the proposition in it that you can declare states to be safe in this way, despite the evidence, and would remove certain anomalies that I will come to. It presently extends the inadmissibility process for asylum claims and other human rights claims. The distinction between human rights claims and claims to asylum is critical, but Section 59 conflates them. Unlike asylum claims, many human rights claims are founded not on an assessment of a country’s safety but on an individual’s connection with this country: family ties and relationships. As it stands, we risk imposing what amounts, in an anomalous fashion, to a blanket ban on consideration of human rights claims from a country because it is deemed safe, when that is irrelevant to the nature of the claim.
Section 59 deprives individuals of a right to appeal, as these claims, because they are disregarded from the outset, go unconsidered rather than refused, and therefore there is no right of appeal unless there are exceptional circumstances. But what might be considered exceptional circumstances are defined in the legislation in a non-exhaustive way, with narrow examples, such as derogations from human rights obligations under the ECHR or suspension from the EU by the country itself. They are simply inapplicable to states such as India, leaving us with legal uncertainty, over and above all the other problems with this process.
Noble Lords will know that exceptional circumstances have been narrowly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the past as requiring compelling reasons to believe that there is a clear risk that the individual will be liable to persecution in the country of origin. This test is clearly incorrect for private and family life claims—again a result of the conflation of human rights and asylum claims.
Returning to the list of safe countries, I believe that this involves the other place and your Lordships’ House being asked to do something that they are plainly ill-equipped to do. The list of safe states in Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act may be altered by the Government and future Governments through affirmative regulations, but I for one would feel myself placed in an invidious situation if asked to vote on whether a member of a religious minority could be considered safe in parts of India; on whether a young Bohra girl is safe in India, given the very high incidence of FGM in that community; or on whether a gay man in Georgia can be considered as residing in a safe country. To reach an informed judgment in these cases would require an omniscience that I do not pretend to possess.
I am grateful to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which, in the case of Georgia, drew my attention to the case of Noah, a man who, mere months before Georgia was declared safe, was granted refugee status in the UK. After coming out as gay, he was physically attacked by his own family members, he was forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental illnesses, and he had an exorcism performed on him at his local church. His partner was attacked too, but the police in Georgia did not protect either of them—but the United Kingdom did, despite this legislation being in power at the time.
Considering this case and others like it, the lack of an obligation to keep the list of safe countries under constant review is troubling, over and above all the criticism that I have. The Committee needs no reminder of the tortuous logic-chopping that accompanied the decision to legislate as to the absolute and perpetual safety of the country of Rwanda. I worry that the absence of a reviewing mechanism for this list threatens to put us in a similarly invidious position.
Of course, Section 59 has not been fully commenced, but, given that the Home Office has granted asylum or human rights protections to hundreds of people from the countries on the list in recent years, even the shadow of the Section 59 provision is damaging. If commenced, these individuals would have no way to challenge a decision wrongfully to deport them. So either the Home Office has, in granting asylum or human rights claims, been acting out of a superfluity of compassion, or the suggestion that these countries are in all circumstances safe is wrong.
It is my belief that Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is ill-conceived and that it ties the hands of the Home Secretary, who, under its provision, must declare asylum and human rights claims from these countries as an inadmissible, save where largely undefined exceptional circumstances are detected. If fully commenced, it risks involving us, going forward under a new Government, in multiple breaches of our obligations under international law. I urge the Committee to support Amendment 104. I beg to move.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 104 and I am proud to follow my noble friend after the passionate and eloquent way he introduced it. He spoke passionately and deeply about the young man, Noah, and the experience that he had in Georgia. Before I speak further in support of this amendment, to which I have added my name, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who, as your Lordships know, died on 6 May this year. I had the privilege to work alongside him on immigration and asylum legislation in this House. He was always seeking to bring justice and fairness where there was none and to give a voice to the voiceless. His contributions will be greatly missed. It is clear to me, having listened to previous interventions on this Bill and from the media stigmatisation of migrants, that this vital work of bringing justice and fairness to the system must go on.
I support Amendment 104, which, as I said, has been put before your Lordships’ House so eloquently by my noble friend. I also welcome and support Amendment 203E. These amendments bring us back to addressing the primary reasons of those seeking asylum. It is vital that each case is processed solely on its merits and not on the presumption of the safety of the country from which the person has fled, despite the issue of exceptional circumstances to which my noble friend has already referred. I am pleased to say the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has put the case exhaustively and therefore there is very little for me to add.
I believe this amendment to be essential because Section 59, once fully commenced, will make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals, introduced by the Nationalities and Borders Act 2022. This could result in violations of the UK’s international human rights obligations, and I am grateful for the briefings that I have received, particularly from the Refugee Council. Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act extends the current general inadmissibility of asylum claims from nationals of EU member states to cover human rights claims and to cover nationals of other countries deemed to be safe, despite concerns expressed about the safety of three of those states: India, Albania and Georgia.
There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. Concerns have been raised by numerous organisations on protection issues in India, Albania and Georgia, including those faced by women and girls, victims of trafficking, and minorities such as certain religious groups and LGBTQ+ people. In relation to the latter, we must recall and recognise the Supreme Court judgment of 2010, HG (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v the Home Secretary, particularly in relation to the lived experiences of such individuals seeking asylum.
Finally, there is a fundamental issue with legislating for so-called safe states. The list of safe states in Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 may be altered by the Executive through affirmative regulations, but Members of this House have expressed concern time and time again, particularly throughout the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, that we are institutionally ill-equipped to act decisively to determine the safety of a state.
We have also expressed in your Lordships’ House concerns that we have been repeatedly asked to rubber-stamp such decisions of the Government of the day. It is our contention that the safety of a state must be designated by a review on the basis of reliable and objective information from a range of sources and regularly updated and published. I urge the Government to consider and reflect widely on this sensible and notable amendment and to work with us and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, to accept this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 203E, to which the noble Lord has just referred. I certainly do not seek to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
I appreciate that we are in very topical territory, and I confess that I found it quite difficult to know how to approach this Bill following the Statement on Monday, because there is a lot to come—and I know that the Minister will tell us that we will have the opportunity to debate it, but of course we do not have that much detail and we are being asked to consider a Bill written before that Statement. We will have opportunities to consider the Home Office’s proposals, and today’s debates will give the Minister a flavour—if he needs it, because I do not think that he will be surprised by very much that is said today—of what is to come by way of our responses.
I, too, am grateful to the various organisations that have briefed us on Section 59. They have clearly spelled out the distinction between asylum and human rights claims and, as they say, human rights claims in many cases have nothing to do with a country’s general safety, or perceived safety. They are about someone’s connections to this country and their dependency and family ties here—as I said, this is topical—and are made by people seeking lawfully to enter or remain with their UK-based family. Among other things, this means that there is no right of appeal, because claims are not refused, they are just not considered. Of course—and it is “of course” to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said—a country may be safe generally, but not to particular groups or sections of the community. The Supreme Court has recognised that a serious risk of persecution can exist as a general feature of life that applies to a recognisable section of the community.
This amendment takes us back to the 2002 Act, which Section 59 amends. That Act allows for exceptional circumstances, and what they may include is a subject of my amendment, in what would be the proposed new Section 80A(5A), which would provide that they include where
“the claimant is at substantial risk of significant personal harm, either as a member of a minority group or as an individual”.
The amendment would also omit Albania, Georgia and India from the list of countries that are automatically “safe” for everyone.
Noah has been mentioned—and, in fact, he was my example for Georgia, where there is a lack of effective state protection for LBGTQI+ people in the face of considerable violence. To add to what has been said, he said:
“No one can know you are gay. If you are gay, your two options are either hospital or exorcism”.
This man was attacked by his own family, forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental illnesses and subjected to exorcism.
The Home Office country note for India refers to gender-based violence, with women and girls in rural areas or from certain castes and tribes especially vulnerable. Institutional prejudices—violence against Muslims, Christians and certain castes and tribes—go unpunished. Indeed, the country note describes the active involvement of the police. In Albania, trafficking is rife. It is one of the top three nationalities—whether you regard that as the top three or the bottom three—of people referred to the national referral mechanism and recognised to be victims of trafficking. It is internationally recognised that domestic and international trafficking, including trafficking to the UK, is rife, and the families of victims themselves are threatened.
I have been involved with the case of a young man —he was young when he came; his application has not been determined yet—where the threat to his family has been a major factor in his response to what has affected his life. Sexual and domestic violence is widespread in Albania. Wherever we are going in legislative terms with this, we have to recognise the situation that noble Lords have already described.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will address Amendment 203J. I declare my interest as a barrister practising in public law and in the immigration space.
As noble Lords will have noticed, Amendment 203J does not sit happily with the other amendments in this group. It is not directly about the inadmissibility of an asylum claim, but it is on a very important point. The refugee convention of 1951 says that, if an asylum seeker has entered the country illegally, he is not to be punished or penalised for doing so, provided he came directly from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened by persecution. Specifically, it says:
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of Article 1”—
the persecution provision in the convention—
“enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
As Professor John Finnis, professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at Oxford, and I pointed out in our paper published in 2021 by Policy Exchange entitled Immigration, Strasbourg, and Judicial Overreach, the drafting and proper meaning of Article 31(1) of the refugee convention were compellingly expanded by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, dissenting in the case of the Crown v Asfaw 2008, UK House of Lords 31. In doing so, they demonstrated the error of the living instrument interpretation advanced by the majority in that case and by the Divisional Court in the case of the Crown v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Adimi, 2001 Queen’s Bench 667. The erroneous but reigning interpretation in Adimi is predicated on the notion, plainly rejected by the draftsmen of Article 31 of the refugee convention, that refugees passing through safe country A en route to safe country B and/or C and/or D and/or E should have the option to choose to seek asylum in B, C, D or E.
This is plainly wrong and not what was intended by the state parties when they signed the refugee convention in 1951. It is time that we corrected the law in this regard. Amendment 203J, together with Amendment 203I in my name, which is to be debated in a later group, restores the proper meaning of “coming directly”. In doing so, it provides a solution to the nightmare of the dangerous channel crossings and uncontrolled entry. I suggest that the refugee convention purposefully distinguishes between those who enter directly from a country where they are in danger and those who do not. There is no immunity from immigration law for those not coming directly; this was entirely intentional.
This amendment aims to vindicate the distinction and seeks to bring an end to the practice of widening the refugee convention beyond the terms that the United Kingdom and the other states agreed. Let us look at the terms of Amendment 203J. The Secretary of State would have a duty to refuse a claim for asylum if a person meets the conditions set out. The first condition, in proposed new subsection (2), is that they require leave to enter the United Kingdom and they have done so without such leave, whether illegally or otherwise. The second condition, in proposed new subsection (3), 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”.
Those words are taken from the convention. Proposed new subsection (4), for clarity, specifies:
“For the purposes of subsection (3) 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”.
To make it absolutely crystal clear, proposed new subsection (5) says:
“For the removal of doubt but without limitation, for the purposes of subsection (3), a person has passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom if they depart in a boat, vessel or aircraft from France or any other European coastal state”.
If this provision were enforced, would you risk your life in the channel in a small boat if you knew that your asylum claim would be bound to be refused? You would not.
This amendment—to use the slogan so favoured by the Prime Minister—would smash the gangs by destroying the business model, and do so while we remain a member of the refugee convention. Unlike the timid tinkering around the edges we see in almost all of this rather performative Bill as presently proposed, this amendment proposes a real, beneficial solution and the Home Office should grab it with both hands.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and declare my interests as vice-president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and chair of human rights at Liberal International.
I want to mention briefly something that happened in Georgia this afternoon. Nika Katsia, who was imprisoned by Georgian Dream on trumped-up drug charges, has finally been freed after the regime, astonishingly, admitted in court to planting drugs on him at a protest. This is the third such case in recent weeks. Many thousands of others remain in prison. Over the last four months, leaders and senior activists have been told by the regime they had to go into the Parliament and kowtow to the new regime. They were immediately imprisoned; it became a contempt of Parliament and some have sentences of seven to 15 years. These are the high-profile people, but some of the hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets every night are finding that, like Nika Katsia, they are ending up in prison for absolutely no reason. Georgia is not a safe place; I support my noble friend’s amendment for this reason.
During the passage of the safety of Rwanda Act, we on these Benches repeatedly said that Rwanda was not safe, and that continues to this day. The Rwandan Government have again imprisoned Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, leader of the Development and Liberty for All Party. She has been nominated for the Sakharov prize and was the winner of the Liberal International prize for freedom last year. She has spent most of the last 20 years in prison, as have members of her party. Many have tried to escape and seek asylum elsewhere for their safety.
Rwanda was not safe then and it is not safe now, so I am really pleased to see that we are at least now discussing that. These amendments are important, and when we come on to another group later today, I will raise the issue of how appropriate it is to have a list in a Bill or a regulation when things can move as fast as they have happened in Georgia recently. That is worth exploring, but I will leave that until we get to that group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I emphatically support the excellent Amendment 203J, to insert a new clause after Clause 48, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth.
It is important at this juncture to put this into some context, because there is a fast-moving debate on our involvement with the 1951 refugee convention and our obligations therein, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister knows that these issues have been debated recently by his noble friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, and even other esteemed Members of this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. However, we are not here necessarily to talk about the disapplication of or derogation from the ECHR, although I may press the Minister to update your Lordships’ House on progress made on the review of Article 8 of the convention, which has been a government undertaking for several months.
The fact of the matter is that we have a small boat crossings crisis, which is the kernel of the rationale of this amendment. Small boat crossings are costing us £5.6 million a day in hotel accommodation for asylum seekers—the equivalent of 73,000 visits to accident and emergency by British citizens and others every day. The National Audit Office tells us that by the end of this Parliament, this is likely to cost the country £15 billion. We have had 180,000 individual crossings since 2018, and this year alone, as of yesterday, 28,000 individual arrivals.
The point is that this is an existential emergency for the protection of our borders, so we need to look at different ways of approaching the situation. On that basis, the Minister should look very carefully at this amendment. It is not about withdrawing from the convention, but a very robust interpretation of our legal obligations under Section 31 of the convention. I will not try the patience of the House by repeating the specific wording of that convention, which is often being misinterpreted by some members of the judiciary and others, including, of course, some charity groups with a vested interest in this area.
My noble friend is right to talk about accretion and the reach of the concept that has developed since the 1970s: the living instrument doctrine, which has informed decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in this area. I accept that the Government are in a difficult position at the moment. We were, of course, party to the Dublin III convention— Regulation 604/2013—and we are now waiting for the European Union’s decision on how to implement the asylum and migration management regulation 2024, which will come into full effect in June 2026.
This is a question of fairness. If you go the right route and seek asylum, naturalisation as a British citizen or indefinite leave to remain, you are, as we know from the Home Secretary’s remarks earlier this week, subject to some pretty significant restrictions on who you can bring in, what your salary or pay should be and your access to public funds. That is perhaps as it should be, but if you arrive by small boat, you have no such restrictions. You are put up in a hotel, subject to limited security checks and are perhaps eventually to be reunited with family members, who will access NHS services, school services and local authority and housing association housing. There is an issue of disproportionality and unfairness between those two groups, and the important thing we need to remember is that my noble friend Lord Murray’s proposal addresses this issue in a way that will not cause—how can I put it?—legal chaos. Most importantly, it will act as a clear and demonstrable deterrent to the people traffickers and to those seeking to arrive by illegal and irregular means, by small boat across the channel. The Government have a good opportunity, as my noble friend says, to seize this issue with both hands.
I finish on the second issue: the UK/European Applicant Transfer Scheme, which was sealed by means of a treaty between the United Kingdom and France in May. Interestingly, the Home Secretary wrote to my committee, the European Affairs Committee, on 6 August to indicate that Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was being disapplied, and that the Government had invoked Section 22(1) of CRaG to prevent proper scrutiny and oversight of the treaty, as per the legislation—in other words, 21 days of proper scrutiny. That may be an operational issue which was necessary at the time, but it goes to the inability of the other place and this House to properly scrutinise that one-in, one-out treaty and its efficacy. I would value the Minister’s comments on that. When will we have a chance to look properly at how that treaty and its effects are working, both in the interests of the UK and of our partners in France?
With that point in mind, the Minister has an opportunity to properly consider the amendment. The Government are in a pickle; they are flailing around for some gimmicks to convince the public that they have got a grip on small boat crossings, which they do not. This is a real opportunity for them to seize this issue and to reduce the pull factor of small boat crossings. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment, and hope the Minister at least responds in kind in an attempt to ameliorate what is a national emergency.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 104 and 203J, and to join the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in inviting the Minister to consider carefully the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was a member of the court in the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred. It provides a good example of the problem we face in looking at these amendments.
The problem with the courts is that individual cases come to us and you have to consider them one by one. But as legislators, we can take a broader view, cover the whole ground and intercept problems that, if not intercepted, would come back to the courts one by one to be dealt with. The Georgian case is a good example: if it came before the Supreme Court now, the protection the court offered in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred, would be made available as well. To allow that person to be extradited to Georgia, in the light of such conduct, would be quite contrary to their human rights. For these reasons, there is a lot of force in those two amendments, on the ground that they intercept a problem that will recur and is best dealt with by legislation now.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to a case in the Supreme Court. I have no recollection of that case, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that I was party to the decision and therefore was not in the majority. However, if the minority had included Lord Rodger, that would carry great weight for me.
I confess that, for quite some time, I have felt that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making had a lot of force behind it. I would need to look again more carefully at the wording of the convention to determine what my final decision would be, but he said enough to justify the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to the Government to look at it very carefully, because the advantages of giving effect to that reading are obvious. I do not think that it would damage our reputation, because it would depend on an interpretation of the wording of the convention—not defying or withdrawing from the convention but giving effect to it. That, I think, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is making, and there is a lot of force behind it.
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.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203J, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which has been so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I was glad of the response from other noble Lords in the Chamber to my noble friend’s very constructive suggestion. Across the Committee, there is recognition that we have a problem. I know that in the House of Commons this is now recognised across the Benches, and I have heard it discussed on these Benches with a great sense of a constructive approach to try to deal with things as they are. That is the approach of my noble friend.
We are looking at figures and costs which, as other noble Lords have said, are really very high. We know that 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. That is 14% more than in the year ending June 2024 and 8% more than the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002. Of asylum claims, 55,700 come from people arriving on small boats or through other illegal routes. Of these, 43,000 arrive on small boat crossings and 12,100 through such routes as the back of a lorry, shipping containers or without relevant documentation. The overall figures include around 41,000 people who have come to the UK on a visa or other leave—an authorised route—and who seek asylum.
We are dealing with two broad categories of claimant: people who are coming through irregular routes and those who are coming through legal routes, all of whom claim asylum, or did so in these numbers in 2025. The people who come by small boats or in other ways—lorries or shipping containers—normally come directly from France, from where they make dreadfully dangerous crossings across the high seas, where after arrival, for the year ending in June, we see the figures for those claiming asylum.
Why do they come to the UK? Noble Lords have spoken about the many reasons why they come here. One of the legal answers is that, under the UK’s immigration law, they would be deemed to have committed an offence for not having the necessary authorisation to enter as stipulated under the Immigration Act 1971 and would therefore be deemed to have committed an offence. But the arrangements in Section 31 of the Immigration Act 1999, as my noble friend Lord Murray already explained, are based on Article 31 of the refugee convention. That convention suggests that, where their life or freedom is threatened and they present themselves to the authorities and show good cause for the illegal entry, as has been stated, or if the person stopped in a safe country before coming to the UK—this is in subsection 2—they must show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the refugee convention.
We know that just under half of claims—48%—which received an initial decision in the year ending June 2025 were granted. Although that figure is a smaller proportion in comparison to the year ending June 2024, when it was 58%, or below the peak of 77% in September 2022, it is still around half of all people claiming asylum. In France, 27% of claims are granted—this may be one other reason why they could travel on; it will be for the courts to decide under present law whether it is a good reason. Of course, these figures will change when there are appeals or reviews.
My noble friend Lord Murray has spoken about the legal context and the initial meaning of the refugee convention and the relevant Article 31. I will just say a word about the historical convention. It was in the post-Second World War era. This was another time and another world; we were dealing with different problems during the post-war settlement of Europe, when many of the borders had been redrawn and people had suffered terribly under the occupation by Germany, and many millions had died in the Soviet Union. We are dealing in the refugee convention with questions arising from a war in which Britain played a leading part. She had been to the forefront to defend her own sovereignty and, as Churchill always said and all parties agreed, to restore the liberty of European countries threatened, or indeed subjugated, by Germany before 1945. We can understand the historical context, and I accept fully the legal context which my noble friend Lord Murray outlined. However, because of the changed interpretation, the law as we now have it is applied to facilitate global migration in an era of mass travel, much of it with economic aims.
As I mentioned, noble Lords on other Benches have drawn attention to the legacy which we are dealing with and how we tackle it. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is offered. It is in line with government policy not to abandon international conventions, but it restores a meaning and, to my mind, is a lifeline towards saving the constitutional democracy of this country, which we see, night after night on our screens, under threat because people in this country who are law-abiding and who have welcomed refugees over centuries—far more than other countries—really cannot bear the brunt of it any more. I beg the Minister to accept Amendment 203J.
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.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord says that it would be “Trumpian” to take the course that is being suggested. Supposing that in the Supreme Court, the majority and the minority had been the other way round—and it may be that the majority was taking the correct view—there would be a decision of the Supreme Court which would be at odds with his interpretation and general understanding of the refugee convention. Why is that Trumpian? When we have a dualist system in this country, where we are capable of legislating for our own interests, why is it Trumpian to say that we cannot do that?
Lord Horam (Con)
I am very interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He always makes a very pertinent point, but this is surely wrong in common sense. I do not speak as a lawyer, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, did, but this is common sense. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, the refugee convention as it stands would want someone from Afghanistan to be accepted in a country near Afghanistan, and they would probably prefer that. But that person is given four or five alternatives. He need not stop in one country or another country. Surely it is designed to discourage “asylum tourism”, whereby you decide which countries suit your purpose.
That is surely something we shall consider. It is not necessarily the case that someone coming from Afghanistan will be sent back to Afghanistan. They may come from France, in which case they may stay in France, where they are in no danger. If they go via Italy, they are in no danger there, either. Surely this is the logic of the situation, which ordinary people cannot understand. Why do we have to accept these people who come through multiple countries when there is a refugee convention which accepts that they need not be accepted if they have come through more than one country?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is not just ordinary people who do not understand it. I do not understand it at all, logically. Mind you, I am an ordinary person.
The discussion so far has been very helpful in raising some key issues that the country is preoccupied with. The sensible way to approach this, which people have started to do, is to say that there should be a proper, open debate on it. We need to have a proper discussion about whether the 1951 refugee convention is appropriate for 2025 and very different circumstances. Some of the amendments have allowed us to reflect on that.
Every word of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was on the money—absolutely hear, hear. We sometimes have discussions in this Chamber that bear little relationship to the political, social and cultural context of what everybody else in the country is talking about. There have been times during this debate in which the discussion about what constitutes safety and fleeing unsafe countries gives us a hint as to how we have got into a very serious political crisis in this country. The definition of what constitutes unsafe, the definition of what constitutes asylum and the definition of what constitutes refugee have become so expansive that it is a miracle or a mystery to me that anyone has been deported. If anyone was listening, you would just think, “Oh well, we can’t do anything”.
To give an example of some of the things that were argued, I was involved in a debate on the radio some months ago about whether Albania was a safe country. The example given was one that has been cited here today about the levels of domestic violence in Albania. I pointed out that most of the people that I had seen in the small boats who were Albanian did not look like they were the victims of domestic violence. Given the historic split, sex-wise, in terms of domestic violence, they might well have been the abusers.
I point this out only because, every time you say, “Surely, there is no reason why they should be in this country; they are from a safe country”, people will say, “No they’re not”, and you get left in a situation where you cannot remove them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will make the point, before the noble Baroness moves on, that that is exactly the point that many of us are making—you cannot generalise. I will just put it that way.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was about to go on to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that a country may be safe generally but not for a particular section of the population. The noble Baroness more or less made the point there that she has just made now about not generalising. I agree that it is difficult to say, “This is a safe country” or “This is not”. The problem I have is that we have a situation where we either say, “These countries are not safe” or “Every country can be safe, but not to some groups of people”. We end up, therefore, saying that the whole world, and sections of the whole world, are likely to be unsafe and the people there can come to the UK. We cannot be in a situation where we open up to everybody from around the world who is in an unsafe situation.
By the way, that would also be true of this country, when it comes to the threat of violence against women and girls. You could say that the UK is a safe country. Let me tell you that it has not been a safe country in hundreds of towns for thousands and thousands of young women, girls and children who were sexually abused and raped in their thousands, in an industrial fashion, in the “safe” country of the United Kingdom. I am not prepared to generalise, but we cannot simply say that, because of the lived experience of those individuals who have suffered at the hands of others in other countries, it should be automatically assumed that they can move to the United Kingdom.
Finally, therefore, I want to ask for some guidance from the Minister on the status of the Bill. I read through a lot of the sections and notes in preparation for what I was going to say today and for other forthcoming days in Committee, and I thought, “Oh my goodness, this Bill is completely out of date”. I do not mean it is out of date as far as I am concerned but rather as far as the Government are concerned. Looking at a number of the amendments I have put my name to, I now look like a lily-livered liberal type in comparison with some of the comments made by Labour Government Ministers on the Front Benches. I suddenly thought, “Oh, I was being rather tentative there on the European Court of Human Rights and so on”. But it is full throttle—the Home Secretary covering herself in Union Jacks and flags, as she has told us. I thought, “I don’t know where to go now”.
In all seriousness, the Government have said, perfectly reasonably, that parliamentary time is short in general, and we all know that the Bill is under a lot of scrutiny. There are an awful lot of amendments to the Bill. Would it be possible for the Government Front Bench to assess all the amendments from across the House in different directions and tick off all those that the Government might now agree with, so that we do not waste parliamentary time on things on which there is general unanimity on the Government Front Bench, if not on their Back Benches?
As we continue to discuss the Bill, we should constantly bear in mind that the reason why there is concern about international conventions, the European Court of Human Rights and so on, is that this Parliament—the whole point of us being here—has to pass legislation it considers to be in the best interests of the people who live in this country and are of this country, the national interest being important. If the will of the people, as expressed in Parliament, cannot happen because of international conventions and human rights laws, as liberally interpreted by a plethora of lawyers, then it means that democracy is threatened. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he said we should look at some of this again. I hope the Government will look at it again and that we do not have to waste time on amendments that they will, broadly speaking, agree with.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that this feels a little like a Second Reading debate today, but there are two good reasons for that. First, quite a bit of time has passed since we last met in this Chamber to discuss this subject and, secondly, an awful lot has happened politically. I was fascinated to see, for example, the kite being flown around digital ID cards, which is an incredibly important subject and has a huge bearing on the question of illegal immigration and control of people once they are in this country. I think it is very fair that we have a very wide-ranging debate having kicked off this day in Committee.
When we started looking at this Bill, much of the commentary was that the Bill was thin. I think we spent two days or a day and a half talking about the border controller—essentially a renamed civil servant with pretty much exactly the powers that they had previously. The Bill was not substantive. Since then, we have heard the Government floating various potential initiatives around digital ID cards, the ECHR and reform of family access—if I can describe it as that—so this is very much a moving target. It almost feels as if there is an argument to pause this Bill while some of these initiatives are worked through.
We also really need to be frank about the nature of the situation and the pull factors which drive people, for entirely logical reasons, to choose the UK as their destination of choice. The Minister and I have had a number of interactions to try and get to the bottom of why the Government believe that the UK is so popular among those who go through a number of other countries to arrive here. I am not satisfied: I am not convinced that I have had really a full answer to that question. I think some of it, as my noble friend says, lies around the very low chance of being deported from this country if one arrives in a small boat.
My noble friend Lord Murray in his Amendment 203J at least has come forward with a really substantive suggestion. Whether that works legally or not, I am absolutely not the person to opine on. When I saw the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, anxious to rise to his feet, I thought a massive torpedo was going to be launched from the Cross Benches into the middle of that amendment. A number of us over here sort of scratched our heads and thought, “Have we heard correctly?” We were delighted that we had, because I think we really are all on the same side here—
Viscount Goschen (Con)
We are very rarely on exactly the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti— I will certainly accept her correction. I think the noble Lord, Lord Empey, described the overall situation brilliantly—we cannot just do nothing or scratch around at the edges, which is an awful lot of what this particular Bill is about. We need to look at different situations and different solutions, and that is why I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s Amendment 203J.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that this has been a long group already, and I know that the Government Whips will be staring at me with glaring eyes. I did not intend to speak in this debate; this is my first raising of my head into the fray of the Bill. I was listening to what my noble friend and others have said. As some will recall, I was answering from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Home Office at the tail end of the last Government, and I confess to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, I am sorry to say, I was involved in the drafting of the then Rwanda deal in No. 10 when one of the previous Prime Ministers was there. It was good then; it is good now.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord says that it was good. There was a provision in the Rwanda Bill which said that, notwithstanding deeming that Rwanda was safe, it might not be safe for the individual, so the Bill would not even have worked.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I suppose that was a slight defect of the Bill, but that ship has sailed. The crucial point, which I will come back to—and I respect the noble Lord enormously—is that the Rwanda deal had a deterrent, and that is what we are lacking. It may have been only for small numbers, not anywhere near the numbers we wanted, but it was a deterrent. It was one part of a series of steps that we should have taken, but, as I say, that ship has sailed.
I am backing the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray and my noble friends on my Front Bench, certainly not because I have been asked or told to, and, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said, this is not about pulling out of the ECHR or the refugee convention, nor—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was saying—about saying that we do not want to accept any refugees, but because it is about tackling illegal migration and the crossings we have had.
We have seen one so-called spectre raise its head today in the form of the elected President of the United States. There is another spectre on the horizon that we have not yet heard about, but I am sure we will at some stage: Reform UK and Farage. It is certainly not a view that I share, nor is it that of Reform voters. I am not saying that the Ministers do not know this, but I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said: outside this hallowed hall there is a genuine, deep, growing sense of unease, anger and frustration, which is building. I know that it is not unique to this Government, as it has been growing for some time, but it has grown exponentially of late because of this sense of injustice and lack of control.
As I think the Government have said—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to—crucially, we need a deterrent to tackle the crossings. We have to grip this; we have to tackle the numbers and, as I think my noble friend Lord Goschen was saying, we have to tackle the pull factor. There is no deterrent in the Bill as it currently stands. That is why I wholeheartedly support my noble friend, and the two amendments from my Front Bench.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in sporting words, this has been a game of two halves. One half has very much struck at what I would call Second Reading speeches and issues, and the other has been very specifically about the structure and place of safety issues in the Bill. I will deal first with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, supported by my noble friend Lady Brinton, on Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act.
My first question to the Government is why they are retaining this section of the Illegal Migration Act, which I understand has not been enacted. I understand that their rationale is what we call “operational benefit”. That could mean having some petrol in the car or some policy vehicle that you want to move forward. An explanation of what that operational benefit is would be helpful, because the retention of this section effectively removes the Secretary of State’s discretion in declaring asylum and human rights claims from these countries and renders them all inadmissible.
We have been talking about what is “generally safe”, and so on. I recall the 2023 regulations, on which I spoke about the inclusion of Georgia, Albania and India. I made the point that countries can be safe for most people, but not all. The context is that, as the UNHCR says, we have to note that, while a safe destination may be procedural, it does not negate the need for individual assessment, particularly in avoiding the risk of refoulement, significantly, which we have talked about here over the years.
It is down to the Government to tell us why they want to retain this section. We talked about the threshold for admissibility being negligible. As I understand it, there is only a limited judicial review route with no right of appeal, so if somebody wishes to try to appeal, it is a very thin route, and judicial review is not a simple process—it requires considerable assistance.
My colleagues have raised major concerns, particularly about Georgia. Colleagues in this Chamber will know that we have spoken to the leaders of political parties. One of those I spoke to went back the next day and was immediately imprisoned. Just think about this policy of treating Georgia as safe. By the way, Georgia is in the Government’s list but not in the Conservatives’ list, which we will discuss later—even they agree that Georgia is not safe. Let us imagine that we were commanded by the Lord Speaker to attend here at a certain time and sign a particular support motion for the Government, not as a recommendation but as an imprisonable offence. That is happening. Political freedoms, which we all think are essential, are being denigrated in Georgia at the moment.
We have heard about how changes in countries can happen frequently and rapidly. We just cannot afford to say, “This place is safe”, and then a few years later change our mind after many people have suffered because of its actions. I repeat the report from the United Nations high commissioner: we have to make an individual assessment and make sure that we are obviating the risk of refoulement.
I will simply say two things about the second half. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was absolutely right that, if you are a member of a convention and want to change it in a big way, we know from the way that conventions are placed that there is room for movement, adjustment and interpretation. I would maintain that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a severe method. Under it, the only people who could be admitted to this country, for example, would be people who took a flight directly from Sudan to London Heathrow. There are no flights—and I know that there are noble Lords here who know that. Our experience is that it is right for conventions to be examined all the time, and to try to make them move on.
I noted many mistakes. People frequently interpret the ECHR as being a body of Europe. It is actually a body of the Council of Europe. Could the Minister address this? I spoke to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the Committee of Ministers, including those from this country, and he said that discussion on the ECHR is already under way among the countries in the Council of Europe. I must say to those who say we should leave the ECHR that we would be leaving the Council of Europe as well. We as a country have signed up to 151 conventions on freedoms that we all take for granted. We have to be clear about this and take the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I do not know how far it has progressed, but it has certainly started and is under way, and I know that that discussion will progress.
I do not think that any other noble Lords in the Chamber are members of the IAC of this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked about the Hillmore agreement, where the decision was taken not to have the scrutiny under the CRaG arrangement. It is the IAC of your Lordships’ House that does it on behalf of Parliament, by the way—not just the House of Lords but also the House of Commons. We discussed this matter yesterday because obviously, it is clearly important. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, is sitting right next to the noble Lord, and she will tell him that there was an exchange of letters between the Government and the committee. We have agreement from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that there will be an evidence session, and they will provide exact details of the agreement. The committee will then report to Parliament, and there can be a debate in this House about that matter. In some senses, it is a bit of an advantage to have a treaty that is in action in this case, so we will be able to report on what is happening rather than what is proposed to happen. It may be second best, but it certainly was possible for it to happen.
So, in conclusion, I return to my first question: why do the Government want to retain this section of the Illegal Migration Act? If they do, what is the operational benefit?
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.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a very wide discussion, wider than I anticipated. I sense that at the end of the debate I probably will not have satisfied many noble Lords in the Chamber today, but such is the nature of government responsibilities.
I was not intending to say this, but given the comments from the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Empey, and others, I think it is worth setting out that the Government have taken this issue extremely seriously in their manifesto and in their actions, not just in this Bill but in the immigration White Paper that we have published and in the unilateral actions that we have taken independently without requiring legislation. The issues of illegal entry, defining our asylum system and tackling an effective immigration system are extremely important. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments, but it is worth placing on the record again that this Government have spent time talking to their allies in France and agreed the treaty looking at an exchange. It is a pilot that will be looked at in detail. We are working with the Calais Group of Belgium, France and Holland on international action to stop smuggling. We are working downstream with the German Government to tackle issues to do with boat manufacture and transfers. We have signed agreements with Iraq. We have put powers in this Bill to establish the Border Security Command and to make some activities criminal, which we discussed earlier today. We have a commitment to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament and we have saved £1 billion-worth of expenditure over the past 12 months by reducing the number of hotels being used but also by maximising the use of those hotels. We have put a lot of energy into cracking down on illegal working to try to stop some of the pull factors that make people think they can come to this country, disappear into the system and work illegally. We are trying to crack down on that and we have increased the number of arrests and prosecutions. We have speeded up the asylum claims system, because at the heart of this is determining who has a right to stay in this country and removing those who do not. We have speeded up the processing of asylum claims and removed 9,000-plus people in the past 12 months who have no right to be in the UK.
A number of Members have said that the Bill seems to have been frozen in time and things have moved on. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will have a debate about how lily-livered she is—we can discuss that in due course in a friendly, competitive way—but we are continually looking at these issues. The measures that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward this week are based on the assessment that she has made of the situation, which is ongoing. To give the example of this week, if we find that family reunion applications have increased by over 100% in the past two years and there is a big issue in terms of people coming to the country through that route, it is right to suspend that family reunion route to review it, as we will do very shortly. That is what Governments do. We look at the problems and challenges and we review it.
We have set out measures in this Bill to establish a fairer, stronger system. We have done the same in the immigration White Paper and we have taken actions accordingly elsewhere to have a purpose. I do not want to see the type of concerns, distrust and disorder that there are around hotel use and people who are here while their asylum claims are assessed. I want to understand those concerns. I am not making this a party-political issue. The concerns that have arisen over the past nine years are driven by small boat crossings. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, stood at this Dispatch Box while I had my interregnum from both Houses of Parliament and made cases for the Rwanda scheme, which he has admitted today had some flaws and which we have taken a decision to repeal in full. I think that we have a shared understanding from all sides of this Committee that this is an issue that needs to be challenged and tackled, which is why we are setting out the measures today.
There are a number of amendments before us, and I shall try to talk to them as a whole, starting with the Opposition Front Bench, because they are the Opposition and they are the Front Bench, so it is fair to start with them. I shall return to my noble friend Lord Browne in due course.
The two amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, Amendments 192 and 193, seek to widen the current inadmissibility provisions. Currently, individuals can be removed to a safe third country if their asylum claims are declared inadmissible. That includes illegal entrants as well as other claimants whose asylum claims are liable to inadmissibility. The inadmissibility process is intended to support the safety of asylum seekers and the integrity of the border, as well as the fairness of the asylum system, by encouraging asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, deterring them from making unnecessary and dangerous onward journeys to the UK.
For a claim to be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered by the UK, the individual has to have been present previously in, or have a connection to, a safe third country where they could claim asylum or could reasonably be expected to have done so. Under Amendment 192, anyone who arrives illegally must have their asylum claim declared inadmissible. With due respect to the noble Lord, that amendment would mean in practice that all asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally would have their claims declared inadmissible, with no regard for whether there is a safe third country for them to return to. Such an approach would, in my view, mean a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible, which in turn would mean that we could not establish whether they qualify for refugee status. In that scenario, those individuals would be in a holding position, unable to be removed, including those with genuine claims who would have their claims assessed now under the system, where 60%-plus of people who make a claim have it approved. That is a difficult challenge. It is with integrity that the noble Lord has moved the amendment, but it is difficult, and it would not have the objective that he seeks.
Similarly, with Amendment 193, the noble Lord also seeks to ensure that individuals will have their asylum claims declared inadmissible when they fail to register an asylum claim within 12 months. Again, there is a motive behind that which has an integrity, but it is one that I cannot share. Some people do lodge asylum claims in an opportunistic manner, sometimes to extend the time that they can remain in the UK, but this amendment would not deal with that particular issue. It would simply extend indefinitely the time in which those individuals would be able to remain in the UK because, without an ability to examine their claims, we cannot determine whether they qualify for refugee status.
The amendment also fails to take account of sur place refugees, which would mean that anyone lawfully in the UK from a country in which the circumstances have changed—and we have had much discussion around that today—in a significant and detrimental way, for example if there has been an armed conflict in the 12 months they have been here, would be unable to avail themselves of the protection of the UK.
In contrast to that, we have the amendment from my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord Hope, have spoken in support of it. That amendment would repeal Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which amends Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which itself provides that asylum claims from EU nationals must be declared inadmissible to the UK’s asylum system, other than where exceptional circumstances apply. Inadmissibility procedures in this section allow a state to declare an asylum claim inadmissible when the claim is made by nationals of countries that are declared generally safe. It is an important, long-standing process that can help prevent asylum claims from nationals of countries that are safe absorbing the limited resources that we have.
I understand the motivation behind the amendment from my noble friend, but I remind the Committee that Section 59 is not yet fully commenced. Indeed, the only part of Section 59 that has been commenced is the power to add or remove countries from that list of safe countries. However, and this goes to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government believe that it is important and the right approach to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe. That addresses the point that my noble friend made.
Amendment 203J has had support from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Lawlor, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who proposed this system. We have had some discussion around ECHR Article 8 and the French treaty from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Let me just say again, for clarity and for this Committee, that the Government believe in the ECHR and are committed to our international obligations, for a whole range of reasons that I have outlined on a number of occasions, but that does not mean that we cannot look at things.
The Article 8 provisions that we have trailed that we will look at, which again goes to other points that have been made by other noble Lords, are issues that we will return to in the coming months that we want to consult on, including consulting colleagues in the judiciary to ensure that we have an understanding of the interpretation of Article 8 and whether it needs to be tightened to ensure that the country is not taken for a ride by individuals using that premise under circumstances where effectively they are using it as a last resort, in a way in which we all really think is inadmissible, to use a word that we have used a lot today. I do not think that that is appropriate. That Article 8 review is ongoing. The French treaty that we have established is in pilot form and we will review it during this month. We hope to extend it further and I shall report back to the House on the numbers involved. There are other tools that we are working on to ensure that we help put some energy into tackling this important problem.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking this intervention and grateful to him as well for explaining in general terms what the Government are thinking about. I understand why at the moment he cannot be more specific. He says that the consideration is to Article 8, but should it not also embrace Article 3, which is very often used in circumstances where many people would raise a question as to how appropriate it is?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am happy to examine that. We have said publicly that Article 8 is the focus for our examination, discussion and wider review. However, that does not mean—and this is the key, important point—that we will ditch the ECHR. Although it is 75 to 80 years old and was established in 1950, as a number of noble Lords, including Lord Kerr, have mentioned, it establishes a number of basic rights, which are important to me and to the people we represent and the people in our communities. They set a basic framework, but that does not mean that we cannot look at how those interpretations are made. That is why we are trying to do that.
To come back to Amendment 203J from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, this would impose a legal obligation to refuse all asylum claims made by illegal or other irregular migrants who travel from safe countries. The stated intention of the measure is to deter such people from using dangerous and illegal methods to enter the UK. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this: the amendment would not achieve that aim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without consideration of the merits of their claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. We may not want to be in the refugee convention, but we are in it and we cannot in my view unilaterally breach those obligations accordingly. Even if a person’s asylum claim could be refused on account of this measure, the humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate the difficulty of the position from which he speaks, and the difficulty of the position of the Home Office in this regard. The point of my amendment was not to breach international law. As I hope I made clear, the wording of the convention in Article 31.1 is clear: one has to come directly. This is an opportunity for the Government to comply with their stated intention of not breaching international law but still deliver a policy that has a deterrent. This is a vital opportunity and I implore the Minister not to miss it just because it is coming from me.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me reassure the noble Lord that this is not personal. I would welcome any suggestions from across the Committee. If we reject the amendment in due course, as he is right to suspect we will, it will not be because it comes from him; if anyone else had moved it, it would still be rejected. The noble Lord knows better than anybody the challenges of the roles that we have in the Home Office. I am grateful for his suggestions and we are trying to examine them.
The key point—maybe this will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a chance to think again as well—is that the merits of the claim could attract an appeal right, removing the possibility provided under the current system for certifying the claim as clearly unfounded. We would end up with even more litigation, which may help lawyers but would not help the resolution of the challenge at home. Without the specific further provisions in the legislation, our decision would need to explain why we considered that this measure applied in an individual’s particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised alleging that their life and liberty were threatened in what we consider to be a safe third country. It is nothing personal to the noble Lord, but we cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment 203E, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. It seeks to provide a definition of “exceptional circumstances” for the working of our inadmissibility provisions. It also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of generally safe countries to which inadmissibility provisions may apply in the future.
I have explained how exceptional circumstances bear on the inadmissibility process. Section 80A already sets out examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, which relate to states derogating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These examples are not exhaustive, and there may be case-by-case instances where exceptional circumstances are identified and where that inadmissibility should not be applied. At present, the question of whether a person’s evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. The amendment would replace this established approach.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. He has referred to derogation from the ECHR. I wonder what consideration the Government are now giving to Georgia, which is in clear breach of the ECHR and has taken itself out of the Council of Europe, because it knows it has to do so. This is clearly a country that has derogated. Is that something that the Government are looking at? We can do it by regulation, as we are going to talk about, but since this is the only power that the Government are holding on to, this is a country that needs to be looked at very seriously indeed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
To add to that, that is a country in which our Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual Ministers. Is there any correlation between what the Foreign Office does and what the Home Office considers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will take a whole-government approach to this issue. I would like to reflect on this with colleagues who are directly dealing with the matter and will respond. We are in Committee, but there will be opportunities later, on Report, to examine this further. I will take away the comments that have been made and contact both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord accordingly.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I think of as my noble friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, although the list has been commenced, the provisions necessary for it to have any effect have not been. If this Government decide that it is right to change the list for inadmissibility decisions, we will at that time, based on up-to-date information, consider whether any countries should be removed. That goes to the point that has been made about Georgia. We will consider those issues and reflect upon them using the appropriate parliamentary procedures, according to the criteria set out in Section 80AA.
In summary, the Government have a solid approach to try to tackle this issue. Some of the measures are still in the pipeline because of the legislation, but there is a strong series of measures to try to make an impact on what is a genuinely serious issue facing this country—one that needs resolution and which has built up over a number of years. However, I do not believe that the series of amendments in this group would assist in that process. For the moment at least, I ask my noble friend Lord Browne, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to withdraw his amendment, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Official Opposition, and Members from the Liberal Democrats not to press their amendments. There will be an opportunity to reflect on what has been said, with an examination of Hansard tomorrow. There will be opportunities on Report, if need be. For the moment, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I may not be the Minister’s parliamentary friend but I am not his parliamentary enemy either. Seeing as he is in an emollient mood, might I prevail upon him further? He says that a government-wide approach is being taken to the ECHR. His colleague in the Foreign Office has told me twice that they are not looking at the refugee convention of 1951. Surely we have to open a discussion with our allies and look at how that has been operating since its inception in 1951. Perhaps the Minister could persuade his friends in the Government to look at that convention.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, will know that the Government keep all matters under review at all times—that is the political, Civil Service direct answer in response to this matter. I assure him that, from my perspective, our international obligations are extremely important. That does not mean that we cannot examine how we interpret those actions. That does not mean that we cannot examine the measures in this Bill, announced by my right honourable friend this week, and the direct executive actions we can take around hotel use and other things, to ensure that we put some pressure and energy into the system to achieve—let us end on a united note—the objective of all Members of this House to have a resolution to people being exploited by criminal gangs, in small boats, subverting immigration and asylum systems in the United Kingdom. With that, I hope noble Lords will reflect on my comments and do the right thing.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I may have misunderstood him, but did the Minister say that the Government would consider derogating from Article 3?
Lord Hardie (CB)
I know that. I may have misunderstood what the Minister said, but, if that was the case, I point out that that is not possible.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The intervention that I took invited me to examine that issue. I have said I will examine it, but, as I said in response to that question, the focus of the Government as a whole is on Article 8. We anticipate energising the review of Article 8 to ensure that we examine how it is currently interpreted, what actions are taken as a result of the article, and whether further guidance needs to be issued about those matters. In response to the intervention as to whether I would look at Article 3, I have said that I will look at the point that was made then. The focus of the Government is Article 8.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
To clarify the position, I was not suggesting derogating from Article 8. The possibility of giving guidance to judges is, I believe, under consideration and it may be that, in resolving issues under both Articles 8 and 3, it might be necessary for the Government to think again as to what guidance to give to courts.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thought that was what I said. I hope we can agree, at the end of this group of amendments that was livelier than I initially anticipated, that the Committee can support the Government’s direction of travel. However, I hope the amendment before the Committee today will be withdrawn.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my final remarks with the traditional thanks to all those who have contributed to the debate on Amendment 104. When I saw that I had the overt support of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Brinton—whose support was more implied than overt—and the noble Lord, Lord German, whose support was overt, I began to think the only group that is of similar value to this one are the players that Liverpool signed in the transfer window. I thought, “I cannot possibly lose this argument”, until my noble friend explained operational benefit. I do not know if I should be pleased about the noble Lord, Lord German, reminding him of the possibility of “operational benefit”, but he found it—I will come back to that in a moment.
I heard nine Conservative speeches. I was astonished that, until the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not one defended it—not one—and I think at least one of them may well have been responsible for the drafting of the legislation that Section 59 was in. I was therefore surprised when the noble Lord found that there was a pretty straightforward principle for Section 59, which is not that much different in its outcome to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hanson. However, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—and I will spend some time expanding this argument—if one looks at Clause 38 of the Bill, Section 59 is going to be pretty much alone as something that was in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It is going to find itself in a very lonely context. The noble Lord’s argument was that one had to see this in context, but that will disappear if this Bill is passed. I will spend some more time between now and Report looking at just what that means for the ambitions that people have for Section 59 as it is presently drafted.
Some of the most important points that were made in this debate are well worth repeating. I do not intend to repeat very many of them because it has been a very wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of repetition. It is important to start as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, encourages us to do, not only in debates but in conversations: to remember that it is people’s lived experience that should decide whether they deserve asylum or human rights protection, not conclusions that Governments or officials have come to about the temporary safety of the environments in which they may be living. This is all about people, and if we start from there and take into account all the other complexities of this legislation, we get to a point where there should be no room for Section 59 in the legislation going forward. There may need to be something similar to provide a benefit to the management of an issue of this scale, but it will not be that particular section in my view. This is a matter that I will come to again.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the Question that Clauses 38 and 39 stand part of the Bill. It is a curious feature of this Bill that, on the one hand, it purports to take tougher action on illegal migration, yet at the same time it repeals the very Act of Parliament which would tackle that illegal migration in the most robust and effective way.
The Illegal Migration Act was introduced in the other place on 7 March 2023, in response to the crisis along the shorelines of the south-east and in the channel. It was aimed at stopping the boats, defending our borders and preventing those who enter the United Kingdom illegally from being able to remain. As my right honourable friend Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary at the time, said when moving the Second Reading in the other place:
“The British public know that border security is national security, and that illegal migration makes us all less safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 573.]
At the time, the Labour Party did not agree with that sentiment as it consistently opposed all efforts to stop the boats under the previous Government. It was welcome that the current Government began to acknowledge the necessity of stopping the boats, but it is clear from this clause that they have not yet fully appreciated what must be done. If they had, then they would not be pursuing this course of action.
Central to all of this is that this is what the British people want. They want to stop illegal migration, people making the journey across the channel in small boats and people dying in the channel. The way we do that is by having a credible deterrent to end the demand. That deterrent needs to contain both the ability to remove everyone that enters the United Kingdom illegally and a removals policy involving a safe third country.
The Government have spent much time trying to tear down the sensible policies of the previous Government, both the safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the same time, they have announced that they want to follow the Italian approach and pursue third-country removal centres—or, as the Prime Minister calls them, return hubs. In a visit to Albania in May, the Prime Minister said:
“What now we want to do and are having discussions of, talks of, is return hubs, which is where someone has been through the system in the UK, they need to be returned and we have to make sure they’re returned effectively, and we’ll do that, if we can, through return hubs”.
However, we know that Albania does not want to work with this Government in establishing return hubs. The Government have also spent much of the last few months talking up the one-in, one-out returns deal with France, but, as we all know, this returns deal is not much more than smoke and mirrors. It is very clear that EU countries do not want to take third country returns. It is also clear that the only country willing to take third country returns is in fact Rwanda. That is why we pursued the Rwanda policy and why we passed the Illegal Migration Act.
The effect of repealing the Illegal Migration Act and scrapping the Rwanda deterrent is that people who arrive in Calais know that all they have to do is make their way into British territorial waters and they will most likely be able to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if they are not successful in their asylum claim, they may very well be able to remain in the UK because we cannot return them for one reason or another.
The measures in the Illegal Migration Act placed a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove illegal entrants, thereby sending a strong and unambiguous message to those who would seek to flout our laws and abuse our immigration system. This Act, taken in tandem with the Rwanda scheme, if allowed fully to operate, could have acted as a suitable deterrent. By repealing this Act almost in its entirety, the Government now lack the ability swiftly to remove illegal migrants and will not be able to deter further crossings. This is highly disappointing. It betrays the simple fact that this Government are not truly serious about stopping illegal migration and defending our borders. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing the clause stand part notice. At the outset, I place on record for the House that 35,052 people were returned from 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025, the first year of this Government. Of those returns, 9,115 were enforced returns of people with no legal right to remain in the UK, a 24% increase over the period of the previous year.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Of the total returns, 5,179 enforced and voluntary returns were of—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In a moment. I will always give way, if the noble Lord will let me finish the sentence. Of the total returns, 5,179 were of foreign national offenders, an increase of 14% over the same period in the 12 months prior. Therefore, before the noble Lord puts the premise that we cannot remove people and that this Government are not trying to, those figures put the record straight.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of the 9,000 that he refers to, how many came across on a small boat?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There were a number. I have not got the figure to hand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the 9,115 were low-hanging fruit, why was this figure 24% higher than the previous year, when—let me just remind myself —who was the Minister in charge of this system? Would it be, by any chance, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Right. I think we will just settle at that: that it is 24% higher than in the previous year because of the actions this Government have taken. That is the context in which Amendments 105 and 109 seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing. Therefore, it will not come as a surprise to him to know that we are not going to accept his clause stand part notice today.
Having a duty to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement this part of the INA. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge, of acting unreasonably in individual cases. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people to when their own country is not safe for them.
We have taken a judgment on the Rwanda scheme for that effect, where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and where a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK.
We already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK and have in fact, as I have just mentioned, seen an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum seekers being removed since the election of July last year, along with a 14% increase in foreign national offenders being removed. The Government’s aim is to deliver long-term credible policies to ensure a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim. We are repealing the legislation that the noble Lord brought in; he is trying to reinsert it. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the stand part notice.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question of fact? There are so many different statistics flying around that I think it would assist the House. Could he advise the House of the ratio of people who, having arrived by small boat, are then successfully deported or removed from the country? I would be very grateful if the noble Lord gave us a figure.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have given the House accurate figures which show the removals. I cannot give the noble Viscount the figure he asked for immediately in this discussion, but I will reflect upon that question for him, on the ratio of individuals and where they have come from. However, around 35% of asylum claims are rejected. We are trying to speed up the asylum claims system to ensure that we come to decisions earlier and can therefore remove people with no right to be here. I will certainly examine the noble Viscount’s question, and if he is not happy with the response I eventually give him, there are opportunities further downstream for us to debate that further.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I have listened to so much claptrap from this side of the Chamber, I cannot bear it any more. Could we please stop the right-wing nonsense you are all spouting? Could we perhaps hear just how many people who arrive by small boat are actually given asylum because they have a justified claim?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness the definitive figure on small boat arrival asylum claims, but roughly 61% to 65% of asylum claims are accepted, and roughly 35% are not. I can reflect on the exact figures, but those are the rough figures. From the Government’s perspective, we then have to speed up the asylum claims so we can make those assessments much more speedily. Part of the reason for the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is that those asylum applications were not speedily assessed. Therefore, people have been left in limbo in asylum hotels.
Those numbers have grown exponentially during the period 2015 to 2024. There was a dip just before the election, which I acknowledge, but further energy needs to be put into that to close the hotels—which we intend to do—and to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum. There are separate issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, such as ECHR obligations, refugee convention obligations, et cetera. But the Government simply believe that we need to speed up those asylum claims, and the measures in the Bill and externally from executive action and the immigration White Paper, along with future proposals, are designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his clause stand part notice.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. At this point, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I pay tribute to him for the sterling work he did as a Home Office Minister in steering the Illegal Migration Act through this House, and I thank him for his continued, erudite defence of this Act.
The Government have some serious explaining to do to justify how they think they will have a credible system to protect our borders and prevent illegal migration. If they cannot act swiftly and decisively to remove those who illegally enter this country and process their claims offshore, there is no deterrent. Without a deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the boats, and if the Government cannot stop the boats, then I believe this Bill will fail.
I assure the House that we will be returning to this matter in due course, but for now, I will not oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the stand part notice.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“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?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I find it rather odd to read these two amendments. I am not party political. I sat through a large amount of legislation by the last Government: the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act. There was a great deal of legislation but there were remarkably few people actually deported. There appeared to be, within the last year of the last Government, even fewer people being deported. There seemed to be—if I might put it like this—almost a degree of lethargy. So listening to the way in which the noble Lord has put forward these two amendments makes me feel, to some extent, astonished. What they are asking of this Government, as far as I can see, is what in legislation they achieved but in deportation they did not achieve. They are expecting this Government to do what the last Government did not do. Sitting as I do on the sidelines, listening to what parliamentarians say and to what the Opposition say to the Government, I find it difficult to see why the Government should have to respond to this. It really seems quite extraordinary.
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 109, there are four ways in which somebody could be returned. One is to
“a country of which P is a national”.
I understand—and they understand, and have said so quite properly—that they would not send the person back to a genuinely unsafe country. So an Afghan would not go back to Afghanistan, I assume, and probably a Syrian might not, even now, go back to Syria. That is where we start.
Then we have
“a country or territory in which P has obtained a passport or other document”.
Is that country automatically going to receive this particular person?
Number three, at paragraph (c), is
“a country or territory in which P embarked for the United Kingdom”.
Again, is that country—mainly France, or Belgium or Holland, I would expect, which are the nearest countries—going to be expected to take back every person who comes over? At the moment, the Government are negotiating a pilot scheme for a few to be taken back. I would have thought that the French would simply say certainly not.
The fourth one is
“a country or territory to which there is reason to believe P will be admitted”.
That is a sensible proposal, but where is that country? At the moment, from what we have heard, there are not likely to be many countries which would want to take the majority of people who have come to this country illegally. As I said earlier, I find these two amendments astonishing.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who eloquently set out some of the history of the most recent slew of immigration Acts.
I have a slightly more practical question for both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the Minister, which relates to the various lists of safe countries. The Opposition will discuss their Amendment 120 later. In Amendment 109, proposed new subsection (5) states:
“P may be removed to a country or territory … only if it is listed in”
their proposed new schedule. That schedule is in Amendment 120, where, for many of the countries listed, it states “in respect of men”—in other words, men will be regarded as safe to go back to that country. However, many of those countries already have severe discrimination against LGBT people, including men. In some countries, it is punishable by death and, in others, by imprisonment—but, much more importantly, society feels at liberty to attack and kill gay men. I ask both the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson: what happens to an individual in that position, where the country is regarded to be safe in general but for one group of people it is clearly not?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will answer that question in due course.
The noble and learned Baroness suggested that the Government should not even be asked to respond to these amendments. With very great respect, I do not agree. The previous Government’s Bill that eventually fell away—the Rwanda Bill—was intended to provide a deterrent. I think it is common ground that a deterrent is necessary. The nature of that deterrent may be very much in dispute. Government thinking is still forming on the best way to deal with this very real problem.
The Government need to come up with a response. They had quite a lot of time in opposition in which to generate what they thought was an appropriate deterrent. They have now been in power for a year, and it appears that there is more thinking going on in recognition of the very real problem that they face. In my respectful view, the Government have a case to answer as to what precisely the deterrent will be. What will prevent what we see in our papers and on our screens every day?
My second point is about Amendment 107 and the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was during the Minister’s interregnum that there was a great deal of debate about the interim order made by the European Court of Human Rights. Even the most fervent defender of the European Court of Human Rights would be hard pushed to defend the order it made, which rejected a decision by our courts. It was made by an unnamed judge, it did not give the Government an opportunity to make representations and it did not have a return date by which, in accordance with normal practice, a Government or any other party would have a chance to answer the original order. This was a flagrant breach of natural justice, as was more or less accepted.
Whatever form the Government’s policy finally takes, they would be well advised to bear in mind what is in Amendment 107. It would give the Government the chance to consider the appropriateness of the interim measure—it is a very carefully drawn amendment because it gives that responsibility to a Minister of the Crown. There were many debates about whether the European Court of Human Rights even had the jurisdiction to make these interim measures. I respectfully suggest that, whatever else the Government think about these amendments, Amendment 107 ought to be very carefully considered.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I will just ask for two things. First, I hope that the Government will take and answer these amendments seriously. Secondly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, will accept that it is not proper for the previous Government, who failed to answer this problem, constantly to suggest that this Government are also failing.
None of us has an answer to what is a very real problem. We do not help it by saying, “Yah boo, we thought we should do this”, particularly when, we may have thought we should do it, but it would be very difficult to argue that the previous Government were terribly successful at stopping the boats. I plead that we have these debates in a form which says that we want to find an answer to what is a very difficult issue. Both sides have to accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, who is not in his place now, was a Minister and did not solve the problem. I do not blame him for that, because it is an almost impossible problem to solve, due to the whole range of issues that we have talked about.
I hope that the Committee will talk about this issue in a way where we are all trying to solve it, rather than sides trying to suggest that they are better at solving it. We know perfectly well that, at the moment, the Government have not shown themselves able to solve it and the Opposition have to admit that, in all the years of being in power, we did not solve it. Can we start off with a bit of humility on this side and a bit of acceptance of vulnerability on the other?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I echo the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about the blame game and the importance of us all working with the Government to do what we can to try to tackle the fundamental issues that are influencing the nature of this huge crisis. As I have said before—I repeat the figure now—117 million people are displaced in the world today. That is not the fault of the previous Government or this Government, but it is the reality. People will keep on coming, including from places such as Sudan, which was mentioned in the previous group of amendments.
I attended the All-Party Group on Sudan’s meeting at lunchtime today. The situation in Darfur is absolutely horrific. It is a place I have visited in the past. Two million people were displaced from Darfur, and 200,000 to 300,000 people have died there. If any of us were in Darfur, we too would try to leave, and we too would probably make dangerous journeys. Most people who leave Darfur travel through Chad. They try to get to Libya and to the Mediterranean. Most never even succeed in making that journey—they die on that part of the journey. If they get into the Mediterranean, they probably reach the seabed. If they make it to the continent, some of them finally get to the English Channel. We talk about this as our crisis, but it is their crisis as much as it is ours.
If we do not tackle the fundamental reasons why people are being displaced—for instance, the nature of the current, almost untalked-about war in Sudan that has led to this massive surge in the number of people leaving that part of the world, as is reflected in the figures that the Government publish about the people who are in these boats, coming from places such as Sudan—and if we do not tackle the root causes, this will keep coming round again and again, whoever the Government of the day may be. That is why I agreed with what was said in the previous group of amendments, and I reiterate the importance of finding international solutions.
The 1951 convention on refugees was right in its time—it needed to be drafted in the way it was drafted at the time—but we still need that convention. Yes, it probably needs to be reappraised. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been thinking about this too, as well as looking at Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Minister and others have referred to. These things can be examined, as the Minister has said again and again today, but they can also be reformed. Indeed, nine countries, including Denmark, wrote an email to the European court and the Council of Europe—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Well, they sent an email. The noble Lord, Lord German, is right to point out, from a sedentary position, that it was perhaps not done through the most courteous of routes. However, the point is that those nine countries—Poland was another—are not illiberal countries and they are not led by people who have a hatred of European institutions. They were arguing that the time has come for international action to be taken by countries, collectively, to re-examine the things that we are signed up to, to see whether they are fit for the present time.
I want to say one other thing to those who have tabled these amendments. We have heard a lot about the Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the heart of that was the suggestion that that would be a deterrent and a safe place to which we would send people. Recently, I have been looking again at Rwanda to see what the situation there is at the moment. In its human rights assessment of Rwanda just a few weeks ago, the US Department of State said that Rwanda is raising
“arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by government-supported armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor”.
I am talking about Rwanda, and that is the US Department of State’s finding within the last few weeks. Recently, Human Rights Watch made a submission to the universal periodic review and reported on the use of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees from 2019 to 2024. I might add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on transnational repression—which is with the Minister at the present time, and I look forward to his response to that—identified Rwanda as one of the countries responsible for transnational repression. I point the Minister to those details.
Last but not least, we cannot forget about the involvement of Rwanda in atrocity crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with M23 raging on across eastern DRC. Earlier this year, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability that I chaired published a report on CRSV in the DRC and the abuses perpetrated by that group.
Let us be careful what we wish for. Let us understand the nature of those countries that we are going to send people to and that we say are safe places where people will be able to have good, prosperous and decent lives. Let us be realistic and honest about the nature of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us that we will get to Amendment 110 from the Official Opposition, which is about lists and, indeed, we can then talk more about the countries that are on that list. Rwanda is on that list that the Official Opposition are pointing us towards.
I just want Members of the House to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said: we should stop blaming one another and trying to score political points and realise that this issue is now being exploited by people who have no great love of democracy and the rule of law and are taking people on to the streets and capitalising on this crisis. If we do not find solutions to this, I fear for the stability of our communities and the dangers to law and order and to the very vulnerable people whom I think all of us in this House are trying to protect.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling Amendments 105 and 109. I apologise to the House: in the confusion over the vote we had on Clause 38 stand part, I inadvertently started to discuss not only Clause 38 stand part but, in the last set of discussions, some of the arguments on Amendments 105 and 109. We drifted into that inadvertently because I thought we had finished debating Clause 38, so I apologise to noble Lords if I repeat some of the arguments here.
I start with the very sensible suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. These are complex and difficult issues. We have an inheritance from 5 July last year when we took office which we have had to deal with. I am not seeking to make political capital out of this. I want to have solutions, and the solutions are to have a fair and effective migration system, to speed it up, to ensure that we deal with international obligations on asylum, to remove those people who have failed the asylum system, to remove foreign national prisoners who have abused our hospitality and the privileges of being in this country, to ensure that we have a thriving economy and to ensure that we meet the skill sets that we need for the United Kingdom to succeed. Where we can bring entrepreneurs and others who can offer skills to this country, we do so. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there are many forces outside this House which seek to divide the United Kingdom to exploit these issues. It is imperative that we find concrete solutions.
One of the concrete solutions is the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made—and it has been echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Benches—which is how we deal with the real funnel of pressures that are coming, which are driven by terrorism, starvation, war and poverty. People who make that journey and claim asylum have very often faced challenges that I could never imagine. We need to have international co-operation, because the United Kingdom cannot solve those issues alone. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met 51 countries in May of this year; has discussed with former European partners, which are still our neighbouring countries— France, Belgium and Holland—what the solutions can be; is working with the Germans; and wants to have some international action to stem that flow through the G7 and other bodies of people removing themselves from their home nations to seek asylum wherever it might be. It is an important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked, “If not this, what is the deterrent?”. I do not want to repeat the issues today, but I have tried to set out the range and menu of measures that we are taking which we believe are going to add to that deterrence. However, the deterrence also demands that we take action against the criminal gangs that are leeching off that misery, poverty and desperation to ensure that they enrich themselves through criminal action. That is why we need international co-operation on a range of measures to focus on criminals who are using this to exploit people who are in a very vulnerable position. As of today, that may not be the deterrent that the previous Government potentially thought Rwanda was, but I think it is more effective.
Amendments 105 and 109 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing. I take the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, very seriously. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. That is the fundamental challenge that I put back to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
Again, in the spirit of the instructions from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to the House to deal with this in a sensible and noble way, I am not seeking to make difficulties for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I simply put it to him that the measures in Amendments 105 and 109 would mean that we would have to proceed with removal when there was nowhere to remove them to. That is the fundamental flaw in Amendment 109.
I repeat what I said in response to the general debate on Clause 38, that we have removed people who are unlawfully in the UK. We have seen that increase in the number of failed asylum seekers being removed. We have seen an increase in the number of foreign national prisoners removed—I have given the percentages to the House in every series of amendments we have had today, so I will not give them again now. The Government’s aim is to deliver a long-term and credible policy to ensure that we have a properly functioning immigration system. I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that, yes, it means that we are going to have to occasionally examine things in August and September that we had not considered a year ago. That is because the situation changes. Situations change, and politics needs to change. The measures in the Bill repeal an unsuccessful scheme and try to put in other measures to meet the deterrence that the noble Lord wishes to see.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not to press his amendments and to examine in further detail the proposals that we are bringing forward to the House to achieve the objectives that we share.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I take very seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s comments about humility and trying to be constructive about how we approach this; however, we are also a party of opposition. We remain firmly of the view that the Illegal Migration Act created a framework that was real and gave our border system structure, clarity and credibility. We did so because we recognised that the status quo was unsustainable, and we knew that deterrence without enforcement is meaningless. That is why we pursued the Rwanda scheme so vigorously and still defend it as a deterrent.
At the heart of the Illegal Migration Act was a simple premise: that if someone enters this country illegally and does not meet the necessary criteria for protection, they should be removed promptly and lawfully. Our amendments in this group are intended to encourage the Government to reflect on that principle again and really think before they abandon that framework in favour of something that we say is much softer and lacks precision, urgency and the seriousness that this challenge demands. That is a political decision, but it is one with consequences.
If we do not provide our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools they need, we cannot be surprised when the system fails to deliver. We legislated for that; we recognised that the UK needs a legal basis to enforce its own immigration laws. What the Government now propose is to remove that structure without a credible alternative. That is not just a retreat—it is a risk, and it will be paid for in public confidence, in operational paralysis and in yet more lives placed in the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs. We can and must do much better. I hope the Government use this chance to make that change but, reflecting upon what has been said across your Lordships’ House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Arrangement of Business
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mott, commences proceedings on his QSD, I want to highlight the two-minute Back-Bench advisory time to colleagues participating. I appreciate that this is short, but I ask Members contributing to keep remarks within that limit so that we can ensure time for the Minister’s response.
Prostate Cancer
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that GPs proactively discuss prostate cancer with men at the highest risk; and inform them of their right to a free prostate specific antigen test.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, around one in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point in their lives. In the UK, it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and, sadly, it causes around 12,000 deaths a year. Even more tragically, this number includes many men who are dying needlessly due to late diagnosis. Around one in five of those diagnosed are diagnosed too late. When caught early, there is nearly a 100% survival rate—a remarkable reflection of advances in treatment—but survivability plummets to around 50% when the cancer has progressed to stage 4. Our current approach to testing and screening is falling short. That is why I have secured this debate today, and I welcome Members from across the House who have indicated that they wish to take part.
I support calls for a targeted screening programme for high-risk men. I believe that over 135 Members in the other place have expressed their support, as have many noble Lords. Importantly, so have the vast majority of GPs when surveyed, as well as many patient and campaign groups, including Prostate Cancer Research and Prostate Cancer UK, which I must thank for their support. It is also important to thank the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail for raising awareness by taking up the campaign.
The National Screening Committee is currently carrying out its review, but it seems clear to me that the introduction of MRI and new biopsy techniques, alongside the traditional PSA test, goes a long way to addressing concerns about the accuracy of a PSA test alone and the risks of the diagnostic process. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostate Cancer published a report yesterday to that effect, highlighting the progress that has been made in reducing the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, can offer an update on when this is expected to conclude and on what the Government are doing to ensure there is no further delay.
I also want to note the longer-term work, including the £42 million TRANSFORM trial, announced under the previous Government, that can further add to the evidence base and is a huge step forward; yet I have not chosen to make this the focus of today’s debate, because the issue is too urgent to wait. I want to focus on what we can do immediately to stop men dying needlessly.
Whatever the outcome of the National Screening Committee’s review, we need to change the guidance we give to GPs. At the moment, we leave it to men to proactively request a PSA test from their doctor and we actually prevent GPs from raising the issue, even with men who are at the highest risk. Men are already more likely to put off a visit to the doctor. I must admit I know this from personal experience. How realistic is it to have a system that means a man must proactively find out his risk and then chase his doctor for a prostate cancer test? It means only those who have sharp elbows or who are highly skilled at navigating the health system are getting the tests they need. It is bad enough across the board, but such an approach also entrenches health inequalities, leaving high-risk groups, particularly black men, those with family history and men in deprived areas, seriously disadvantaged.
This guidance was well intentioned when drafted, but it is now out of date. Previously, the test used could cause pain and bleeding and came with a risk of serious infection, but the introduction of MRI and new biopsy techniques has been transformational. Diagnosing prostate cancer has never been safer or more accurate. When combined with the serious consequences of late diagnosis, an update to the guidance is justified. Allowing GPs to have proactive discussions with high-risk men about their right to a free PSA test does not mean that everyone will choose to have a test; indeed, allowing doctors to have proactive conversations could help to reduce the overall proportion of over- diagnosis and overtreatment. GPs would only be proactively raising the point with those most likely to be diagnosed with aggressive cancers.
If we want to say we have a policy of informed choice, then let us make that a reality. Do not leave men to have to do their own research. Let their GPs talk them through it, let GPs guide men on the risks and benefits, and let us make the system one that does not entrench health inequalities. Will the Minister give a commitment today to revisit the guidance given to GPs through the prostate cancer risk management programme to allow them to have proactive conversations with high-risk men?
In conclusion, there is much more to do to stop men dying needlessly of prostate cancer that goes well beyond the scope of this debate, from supporting research and investing in our diagnostic infrastructure to outreach through efforts like the “Man Van” model, which recently made an appearance in Westminster, and the excellent work that has been carried out by Professor Stephen Langley at the NHS Royal Surrey cancer centre and hospital in Guildford, with a trial run by Surrey and Sussex NHS cancer alliance. I certainly hope that we have a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme once the National Screening Committee completes its review. Irrespective of the committee’s decision, we can take action today to end the absurd practice of GPs being prevented from raising prostate cancer checks with men at the highest risk. I urge the Government to take this forward without delay and I look forward to the debate and to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for initiating this debate. Some of my comments are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on whose behalf I also make them, as he is in hospital with a broken leg—but he is doing okay.
I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, made about identifying and offering the PSA test for higher-risk patients. My comments are therefore not about GPs’ role in offering the test to men at higher risk of prostate cancer. My comment is mostly based on the use of PSA as a test for screening purposes. It is a test which has a fairly high degree of sensitivity but a very low degree of specificity, which means that the rate of false positives and false negatives is very high for a screening test.
I agree that some of the trials being carried out—the noble Lord, Lord Mott, mentioned one in Royal Surrey hospital, and there are others in Europe and the United Kingdom—may help us modify the guidance that could be given based on the results of the study and therefore could be targeted at a wider group of people. But we need a test that is much more reliable, easily carried out and much more accurate. Such a test as a preliminary study was developed by the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital. It uses a spit test, which recognises 130 different modifications or mutations of DNA with a high degree of specificity, much higher than the PSA, and a high degree of sensitivity. In a model trial, it would have identified nearly 13,000 patients, the same number of deaths that occur per year, with low-grade prostate cancer. It is a test that requires further trials, because it is easily administered and may become part of a wider screening programme. So we need to be much more aware of innovations that may occur.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, first, the key word in my noble friend’s very important question is “proactively”. Axiomatically, it is Ministers who must decide to be proactive in the end, not national screening committees. This is a time when worried men face a blizzard of news and views about their prostate risk. These are sometimes very hard to decide on; they are conflicting or indeed confusing, even within some GP practices on the front line. PSA tests are valuable, but they have some limitations, not producing infallible results every time. We must be honest about the upsides and downsides, and they must be made clear in order to get realistic buy-in from men on the need to get started on being checked from age 45, or indeed even earlier.
Secondly, surely the messages should be the same in all four parts of the United Kingdom. They are not at the moment: they are different, which strikes me as bizarre, despite the fact that men do and can freely move across borders, just as the condition moves across borders. So I say to the Minister only that in the end it is national Ministers in the four different regions who must be got together to give one national message, lest the tragic death toll climbs further and faster.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for securing this important debate. One of the lessons of history is that we do not learn lessons from history, and we must not ignore the historical facts. First, prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men aged over 45 in England. Secondly, there are higher risks of prostate cancer linked to ageing, black men and family history. Thirdly, early diagnosis is critical. Survival is nearly 100% when detected early but drops to around 50% at stage 4. Yet one in five men—that is 10,000 annually—is still diagnosed too late. Fourthly, despite these facts and earlier warning signs, there is still no UK-wide screening programme. So my first question of the Minister is: what analysis of other nations’ prostate cancer treatment is the Government carrying out, and have they come to any conclusions as to the way forward for the UK?
Next, will the Minister set out what action the Government will take to ensure that higher-risk men who request a PSA test are never refused, in line with current policy? What conclusions have the Government reached as to the most effective method of PSA screening as a result of the TRANSFORM trial launched in May of last year? Bearing in mind the reluctance of some men to submit themselves to rectal examinations, what assessment have the Government made of the BARCODE 1 study on the early detection of prostate cancer using saliva samples to identify high-risk patients? Lastly, when will the UK National Screening Committee announce the conclusions and recommendations of the TRANSFORM trial? A national screening programme for men at high risk of prostate cancer is long overdue. National screening will radically improve the fate of prostate before it is too late.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
The biopsy was not much fun. Stuck in those stirrups, my dignity dangling in the breeze, a charming lady nurse asked me if I was comfortable. We both agreed that that was a profoundly stupid question and laughed our way through the prodding and the poking.
Prostates raise many questions. I got through it thanks to my GP, Dr James Banfield, and support from others, particularly my noble and very dear friend Lord Kirkham.
Too often, men shy away and leave things too late. We need more encouragement, and perhaps more courage, like that of Sir Chris Hoy. When I was a guest editor of the “Today” programme and devoted it to prostate cancer, I interviewed Bill Turnbull, so full of regrets. He had tried to ignore it. He had only a few months to live. We know it does not need to be that way.
When my turn came, I chose radiotherapy. On day one, I gave the young technicians a large box of House of Lords chocolates. “What’s that for?”, they asked. I told them it was to encourage them to aim straight. That was five years ago. I caught it early, which is the key, not only to an extended life but to one without the mucky, yucky side effects, which is not possible without supportive GPs and timely testing. Testing may not be foolproof, but it is better than being a fool. So I am grateful to my noble friend for this short debate. We are helping save lives.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
The Lord is absolutely correct. It was not much fun, was it? I speak as someone who is recovering from prostate cancer. Nearly two years on—so far, so good—I am under active surveillance. I was treated early because of my wise and gentle GP, Dr Nazeer, who has just entered his 60th year in the National Health Service. He gave me his time and his patience, and he cajoled me to rid myself of type 2 diabetes, and after that insisted on giving me an annual blood test. That is how I was diagnosed early.
It is obvious to me that in a civilised society we should allow our GPs to have a conversation with men about what the testing regime should be, particularly those high-risk groups. So I thank the noble Lord for bringing up an important subject that means a great deal to tens of thousands of men and their families in this country, and I know the Minister will have heard very deeply what he had to say today.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I give huge thanks to my noble friend Lord Mott for this important debate, and thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for pointing out that we need better diagnostics with better specificity and sensitivity. We all aspire to a new generation of diagnostics, but we have to live with what we have today. My noble friend Lord Dobbs pointed out that timely assessment is the most urgent thing if you are developing prostate cancer. That is why I would like to address the question of risk aversion: a culture that, I am afraid to say, holds back timely intervention.
The evidence suggests that, too often, doctors’ intolerance of uncertainty is directly associated with diagnostic delays and errors, sidelining informed choices for patients and instead favouring the psychological comfort of clinicians. The NHS culture too often infantilises patients. In modern life, we are used to making 35,000 decisions a day, so the suggestion that patients cannot handle the complexity of modern tests, the idea that diagnoses may be reversed, or the pressure of diagnosis is, frankly, absurd. Yet studies reveal wild variations in PSA testing between GP surgeries, driven often by individual bias, not by science. This lottery is completely unacceptable.
This is a system-wide problem involving not just prostate cancer. Early detection of disease is vital if we are to turn around our national health disaster. We need risk-based screening, mandatory GP engagement and accountability for delays. Therapeutic privilege should be dead and buried; patients deserve informed choices and agency.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, as a doctor, I have witnessed many men living with prostate cancer and cared for them. It has been heartening over the last 30 years to see the dramatic improvement in survival—good survival—of prostate cancer. My own husband was treated successfully for an aggressive prostate tumour 17 years ago, following an entirely fortuitous PSA test. But as we have heard and as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has reminded us, PSA testing is not perfect; surely it will be superseded soon by something better. The 20% reduction in mortality through PSA screening has surely been won very well, but at a very high price in the side-effects of treatment by surgery and radiology, and in urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, which very few urological services in the UK take seriously enough to treat, even though they can be successfully treated.
Going back to the PSA test, there are now risk calculators to help GPs and patients assess whether the test is worth it. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, male patients do not go to the GP unless they are forced to and they have symptoms. They do not like to go through the 8 o’clock scramble—how many of us do? We are light-years away, therefore, from the discussions that we need between patients and GPs, even though, theoretically, we have universal registration with GPs, which should be the perfect concept for developing the system. GPs will not do it unless there is money in it, and if we could include proper screening with risk calculators with GPs in the QOF points, we could solve the problem.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I am able to speak today only because of a chance discussion 18 years ago during a general health check-up in the USA. This led to a positive prostate cancer test back here in the UK, which gave me the opportunity to radically improve my health and extend the length and quality of my life. That is why I fervently believe in early intervention via simple, non-invasive testing to provide others with the same opportunity.
Prostate cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in England. That is actually good news, as it shows that awareness campaigns are working, and more men have been diagnosed while the disease is still treatable. But 17% of those positively diagnosed in 2023 have stage 4 cancer that has spread, becoming incurable and life-shortening. As we have already heard, those at the highest risk are well-defined. They may have a strong family history of the disease, be of Afro-Caribbean heritage or with a genetic predisposition, and they can be simply targeted by GPs.
Men are reluctant to get tested because it hits right at the centre of what it means to be a man, involving deep personal issues such as incontinence, fertility, libido and sexual function. The fact that early-stage localised prostate cancer rarely gives rise to any symptoms makes proactive discussion with a GP vital, and it is why it should become part of routine health awareness and NHS care.
PSA is a simple blood test that costs only a few pounds. It is not perfect, but it is a good starting point to detect men who need secondary testing. It is blatantly obvious that GPs should proactively discuss PSA testing with higher-risk men and inform them of their right to a test. It could save many, many lives.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, understanding that when men have prostate cancer and when they die, their loved ones also suffer. I welcome the review by the national screening committee, and I look forward to its conclusions. But in parallel, there must be change in the guidance given to GPs to ensure that men at the highest risk are informed of the risk and offered a PSA test.
If the screening committee decides to recommend targeted screening, which I fervently hope that it will, it will take years to implement. It is crazy that current NHS guidelines prevent GPs discussing the disease with those who are most likely to have it, and late diagnosis of incurable cancer. The system benefits men who are aware of the issue and able to interact with doctors, entrenching biological and societal inequalities. It cannot be right that it is awareness, not risk, that determines who gets tested. This exacerbates inequality and leads to death. Surely, if a GP is in front of a black man or a man with a family history of the disease, they should say, “Have you thought about a test for prostate cancer?” The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others rightly say that PSA tests are not always accurate. Yes, we need better tests, but, in the meantime, we have PSA tests, so let us use them, because targeted testing saves lives.
Raising awareness is critical. and I pay tribute to the wonderful work of charities such as Prostate Cancer UK, with its great campaigns and whose badge I usually wear. I urge the Minister to work closely with those charities and to embrace the research they are undertaking all the time. I look forward to a positive response from her.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for initiating this timely debate. Prostate cancer is now Northern Ireland’s most common cancer, and yet is the only major cancer without a national screening programme. According to the latest statistics, more than 1,300 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year in Northern Ireland, with almost 300 men in the Province dying annually from the disease. At present, more than 12,000 men are living with and after prostate cancer in Northern Ireland. I am one of them, as well as having several other medical conditions.
I am extremely grateful to the National Health Service in Belfast for the treatment I have received, and I pay particular tribute to the consultants, Mr Benson, Miss McBride and Miss Shum, for enabling me to be with you here this evening. While we do not have a national PSA screening programme, it must be pointed out that that exists in some countries, including Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with many other nations, including the Republic of Ireland, conducting pilot schemes. That said, men living in the UK aged 50 and over can request a PSA test through their GP.
In recent weeks, former news presenter Dermot Murnaghan, who was educated in Northern Ireland, went public with his own stage 4 prostate cancer diagnosis. He said that, in the continued absence of a screening programme, he would advise men of a certain age to “go and demand it”. I fully endorse that call.
Mr Murnaghan is planning to join six-time Olympic cycling gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy, who was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer two years ago, on a charity bike ride to raise money for the cancer charities and raise awareness. I wish both men well with their heroic endeavours and with their treatment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men, but the risk is not shared equally. Black men face a one in four lifetime risk, compared with a one in eight risk for white men. They are also most likely to be diagnosed at a late stage, when treatment is less effective. Men with a family history of BRCA mutations or who live in more deprived areas are also at greater risk. Yet the current guidelines treat all men the same. GPs are told not to raise the issue unless the man has symptoms, but prostate cancer often has no symptoms until it is advanced.
Prostate Cancer UK argues that this is outdated and dangerous. It is calling for GPs to be allowed to proactively speak to black men aged 45 about PSA testing. This small change could save lives by enabling diagnosis and treatment. Previous trials have not included enough black men to show the full benefits of screening, but this gap in evidence should not justify inaction. Updating guidelines to reflect this risk is a matter of public health and fairness. I urge the Government to act so that this inequity and this postcode lottery no longer dictate a man’s chances of surviving prostate cancer.
I had to badger my GP to have it done. I had to point out that I am of West Indian descent and that my family has had this happen before. That was the only point at which it became relevant to my GP. If you did not have my tenacity, that could be a death sentence. You would not be willing, would not be able and would not even know that you need to take on this system. There are many poor communities, black and white, that need this change if our men are to survive.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, my story is slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. A few months ago, I had an elevated PSA. Within 36 hours, the surgery to which I go, run by the excellent Dr Sheldon, had put me on a cancer pathway and offered me an MRI. I was absolutely amazed by this efficiency. The news, I am glad to say, was good, but it was the third time that I had had an MRI. My prostate is obviously a rather energetic creature and my PSA levels seem to be quite high. We have now had to adjust what should take me for another MRI.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, there are concerns here. Perhaps I might make a constructive suggestion for the Minister to take back to her department. I do not know whether the two GPs would agree with this, but I have found that men are often not told to desist from energetic exercise prior to this test—sport, tennis, running, and indeed and especially sexual activity. They also give a false reading and this needs to be accented a bit more. People coming away from a PSA test should be told that these things could raise the prostate-specific antigen.
I will finish by saying how amazed I was to be given this MRI, although it was the third one that I have had. I more or less had to say, “Do you really want to do this? Do you want to spend NHS money on somebody who has been told twice that, thank God, there is no real problem?” Having said that, I am profoundly grateful.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mott, on securing this very important debate. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer last February. I had no symptoms. I was going as normal for my yearly health check at my local GP surgery when a nurse suggested that the PSA test might be appropriate because of my age. It came back positive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest said, it is not a dignified process—although when you get the diagnosis, frankly you do not care.
Let us go through the reasons why this is not being offered. One, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, is the PSA test. I accept that, but I am sure that the three of us who have just talked about our experiences would rather have had a chance of that test than nothing, which was the alternative. There are moves forward with PSA tests, saliva tests and other things, but we must have a screening programme that targets high-risk groups. Education is also going to be important. We need we need a national education programme on this.
Also, from the NHS’s point of view, there is the UK National Screening Committee. I campaigned with my noble friend Lord Watson in the other place around cardiac risk in the young, asking for screening of young people in active sports. The same excuses were used to resist that as are being used now for prostate cancer: false positives and raising anxiety. Yes, it is very stressful point when you get that diagnosis. Thankfully, my treatment is going well, which is down to the incredible people that we have in our NHS, who work very hard on our behalf. I am eternally grateful to them.
Let us look at the economics of this. If we are to reduce costs in the NHS, we must put more money and effort into prevention. This is about prevention. Put very crudely, early diagnosis and treatment is not only saving the NHS money but helping people have a positive and active life.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I join with noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for convening this business and discussing an issue that is absolutely vital in order to save the lives of men across the UK. We are blessed in this House to have eloquent noble Lords who have shared their own experiences of diagnosis and treatment. Men advocating the importance of diagnosis, testing and the fight against prostate cancer is such an important part of advocacy across treatments and will definitely help to raise awareness. We are blessed to have those advocates share their experiences in this debate.
Before Front-Bench contributions and the Minister’s response, I will limit myself to one point, which is to give a voice to younger men in this debate. All too often, prostate cancer is thought of as an issue that affects only older men. As the youngest serving Member of your Lordships’ House, on behalf of younger men everywhere I point out that those young men are ordering private PSA tests at a higher rate than ever. That is all very well for younger men who have the means and awareness to do so, but it is not the case universally. So we need to revisit the guidance that doctors should not raise the issue of prostate cancer with men under 50 if they are non-symptomatic.
I echo the incredulity that has been expressed across all sides of the Lordships’ House about the other aspect of that guidance. Even for men over 50, there needs to be a proactive effort to engage in a conversation about the risk of prostate cancer. Let doctors be doctors. Let them treat their patients. They know their patients better than those who write healthcare guidance. I urge the Minister to visit that question in her response.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, many men and their families should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for this debate, which will increase the profile of prostate cancer and illustrates the need for screening.
We have heard moving stories about prostate cancer. I have very strong and close relationships with friends from my university days some 45 years ago. Several male members of this group now have personal experience of prostate cancer. Thanks to screening, early diagnosis and the latest treatments, most of them are okay. But one close friend, who is my age, has advanced stage 4 prostate cancer. The very latest and experimental treatments are helping to keep him going for a few more years than we dared hope. He was unlucky, because he had screening but the disease developed rapidly in between screenings.
The experience of my male friends means that I ask for a PSA test now when I can, sometimes when I have other blood tests concerned with diabetes. But we have heard how some GPs are discouraged from discussing this threat with some of those at highest risk. The risks are highest with black men and those with a family history of the disease. Those from the most deprived backgrounds are almost a third more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage incurable prostate cancer.
The PSA screening test is not perfect by any means. We need, as and when we can, to move to saliva/spit tests. We need to use AI with blood and urine tests and use multi-parametric MRI. But in the meantime, it seems that we should get GPs to proactively offer PSA testing to men at high risk. It will save lives, and I hope that people are listening.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Mott for securing this important debate and for sharing some of those startling statistics. I also thank other noble Lords who contributed today and shared their personal experience. Time constraints and a Paddington Bear stare from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, prevent me naming them all.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if they have heard this before but, when I worked in Belgium, a urologist advised me that men over 45 should seek an annual prostate cancer test. So, when I came back to the UK, I asked my GP about this and he was dismissive, suggesting that I ask for a PSA test at my next blood test. When I did so, the nurse asked me if I was sure that I wanted one and said, “They’re not very reliable”. Given that attitude from some medical staff—not all, it has to be said—it is not surprising that the data I looked up today shows prostate cancer incidence in Belgium to be below the UK’s.
I understand concerns about overdiagnosis of what is termed slow-growing, localised, or benign prostate cancer, which, when unnecessarily treated, may lead to incontinence, erectile dysfunction or bowel issues. I also understand concerns about misinterpreting data from enlarged prostates. These are important points to bear in mind, but surely this should not be an excuse for reluctance or inaction by some clinicians, especially given the alarming racial disparities mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
I welcome the Minister back to her place after her recent absence. In doing so, I will ask her some questions. Given the emphasis on “from sickness to prevention”, how do the Government intend to raise awareness of checking for prostate cancer, particularly in those disproportionately affected communities?
Some noble Lords mentioned trials—some introduced under the last Government. There are also reports of tests. I know we have to be very careful about what we read in the media and some of the claims, but some suggest that these tests are up to 96% accurate in detecting prostate cancer. Can the Minister say any more at this stage about these trials, the ongoing evaluation, and whether there is a rough timescale for a definitive test we can all have confidence in?
Given the concerns that have been raised, what guidance is available now for medical practitioners on prostate cancer tests such as the PSA, then later the PCA and others? How do we ensure that patients can be encouraged to come forward? How can we be assured that prostate cancer is given the attention it deserves?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extremely valuable debate on what is a very important matter. I find much to commend in the points noble Lords have made. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for bringing this debate forward, for his work in raising awareness of prostate cancer and for his continuing campaign. Let me say at the outset that we are committed to finding a solution and working at pace on research, testing and treatment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for welcoming me back to the Dispatch Box. I have missed his questions and all the questions in your Lordships’ House, so it is genuinely a pleasure to be back. This is a very important debate for my return.
I thank noble Lords for sharing their experiences, whether personal experiences such as those shared by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, my noble friend Lord Watson and others, or the experiences of those close to those directly affected, such as my noble friend Lady Royall. I thank her for raising that issue.
Too many men are dying of prostate cancer. Indeed, as many have said, any death from cancer is a tragedy. So, let me speak first to our Government publishing a national cancer plan later this year that will have patients at its heart, and our goal to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer. I assure my noble friend Lord Beamish that it will provide a specific focus on prevention and early diagnosis, very much in line with the Government’s health mission to shift from sickness to prevention.
We have been listening to and codesigning the plan with members of the public, the health workforce, charities, academics and other partners. I express my thanks to the cancer community for working tirelessly to advocate change. I say to my noble friend Lady Royall that we work very closely with charities, including on research, which I will come to shortly.
I thank everybody who contributed to our call for evidence on the national cancer plan. It received over 11,000 responses, which are now being analysed.
We continue to invest in all-important research through the research delivery network of the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, referred to investment by former Governments as well as this Government. The most recent available data shows that in 2023-24, the Government invested over £133 million in cancer research. Having heard the very real concerns about prostate cancer screening, that is why this Government rode in behind Prostate Cancer UK’s £42 million TRANSFORM trial, which, again, was referred to by the noble Lord and others. This Government have invested £16 million into finding better ways to detect prostate cancer in men without symptoms, which has been the substance of this debate, and I have listened very closely.
I can say to noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Rennard, that the TRANSFORM trial will compare different screening test options. That will include MRI scanning, genetic testing through the spit—or saliva—test, and PSA testing. They are all part of that trial.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for reminding us of a point that should never be forgotten: that black men have double the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Therefore, I assure your Lordships’ House that the TRANSFORM trial will ensure that at least one in 10 of those invited to participate in the trial are black men. This will establish an evidence base to reduce the increased and unacceptable risk of black men dying from the disease.
The UK National Screening Committee, about which there has been much discussion today, works closely with TRANSFORM, assessing new evidence as it becomes available. This ensures that prostate cancer policy and action is at the forefront. Prostate Cancer UK anticipates that the initial findings will be available within the next three years, while the trial will run for over a decade.
To respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I have referred to when TRANSFORM will deliver results. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked about the devolved Administrations. Health policy officials keep in extremely close contact on this very important issue. But, as noble Lords will be aware, health policy is a devolved matter and no nation within the United Kingdom currently offers a prostate screening programme. However, it is important to say that NICE and the Scottish equivalent have detailed guidance which is being used across the UK. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the BARCODE test is part of TRANSFORM. It may be a good test indeed, but we have to be sure that it is a good predictor of disease before going forward.
The PSA test absolutely has a place in men’s healthcare. The test works best in men with symptoms of prostate cancer. It also works in men who have had prostate cancer treatment to assess whether the treatment has been effective and in surveillance of men who have been successfully treated for prostate cancer.
The core issue of today’s debate has been GPs, although we have also talked about screening, and I will come on to that. Many GPs want to, and indeed do, inform men, particularly those at the highest risk, about prostate cancer. Health awareness is crucial in making informed decisions about one’s own health and I absolutely hear the point. This will be part of the consideration of the men’s health strategy which we will see in due course, following the consultation call for evidence. I think the reluctance men may have to come forward on health matters is understood and cannot be ignored.
There have been quite a few comments about GPs not being able to raise matters, not being able to offer tests, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, raised the prostate cancer risk management programme in respect of allowing GPs to have proactive conversations with high-risk men. A number of noble Lords raised this, including my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Beamish, and the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs, Lord Patel and Lord Kirkham, among others. This management programme is only guidance; it is aimed at GPs and their dealings with men. GPs—and I emphasise this to all noble Lords—are not prevented from taking relevant clinical actions that are in the best interests of patients or from having proactive conversations with patients. The Government will consider revising the management programme in line with the outcome of the UK National Screening Committee evidence review. The balance of benefit and harm, even in asymptomatic high-risk men, is unknown and under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised risk aversion among medics. In this case it is sensible to be cautious about offering PSA tests to men without symptoms because the current evidence, as we have heard in the debate, suggests that the test is unreliable when men are asymptomatic. I have heard noble Lords speak tonight and previously about their very positive experiences of the PSA test, and I absolutely have regard to that but there are issues to which it is important to refer. Even if there is a cancer present, the diagnostic tests—which include biopsy and MRI following a raised PSA result—cannot reliably differentiate between cancers that grow slowly and aggressive disease that requires treatment. Some slow-growing cancers may never progress to causing any harm in a man’s lifetime and by detecting non-aggressive cancers there is a risk of leading men into treatments they do not need. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, this exposes men to significant harmful side-effects, including bowel and bladder incontinence and erectile dysfunction. We expect GPs to use their clinical knowledge expertly in discussing prostate cancer and sharing the pros and cons of a PSA so that men can make an informed choice.
I want briefly to refer to the national screening programme. We know that it would improve equity so that all eligible men would have equal access, regardless of who they are or where they are. With this in mind, we are seeking a solution. We have asked the National Screening Committee to prioritise looking again at the evidence for a population screening programme and one targeted at specific high-risk groups. I assure your Lordships’ House that the work of the committee is on track. Scientific reports were received in August. They are currently receiving expert consideration, following which there will be a public consultation to allow the committee to make a recommendation on prostate cancer screening, focusing on the essential question of whether the balance of good versus harm is met. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, and other noble Lords inquired about timelines. Consultation is expected to start in this calendar year and will last, as usual, for three months.
This has been an extremely important debate. I hope noble Lords get a sense of progress, commitment and delivery and I look forward to returning to this point in order that we can save lives.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions(1) The duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1) does not require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.(2) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.(3) The power in subsection (2) may be exercised only—(a) where the person is to be removed for the purposes of reunion with the person’s parent;(b) where the person is to be removed to a country listed in section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (safe States for the purposes of section 80A of that Act) which is—(i) a country of which the person is a national, or(ii) a country in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity;(c) where the person has not made a protection claim or a human rights claim and the person is to be removed to—(i) a country of which the person is a national,(ii) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity, or(iii) a country or territory in which the person embarked for the United Kingdom;(d) in such other circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(d) may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State.(5) For the purposes of this section a person (“C”) is an “unaccompanied child” if—(a) C meets the four conditions in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal),(b) C is under the age of 18, and(c) at the relevant time no individual (whether or not a parent of C) who was aged 18 or over had care of C.(6) In subsection (5) “the relevant time” means the time of C’s entry or arrival in the United Kingdom by virtue of which the duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1) would apply in relation to C apart from this section.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for other exceptions from the duty in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal)(1). (8) Regulations under subsection (7) may make provision—(a) for this Act or any other enactment to have effect with modifications, in relation to a person to whom an exception applies, in consequence of the application of the exception to that person;(b) for an exception, or for any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a), to be treated as having had effect from a time before the coming into force of the regulations.(9) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) may, in particular, disapply any provision of this Act or any other enactment in relation to a person to whom an exception applies.(10) In subsections (8) and (9) “enactment” includes—(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru;(d) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) must be laid before Parliament after being made.(12) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (11) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(13) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(14) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (12) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(15) In this section—“human rights claim” has the meaning given by section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;“national” includes citizen;“protection claim” has the meaning given by section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 107, 108 and 111 standing in my name. They are all linked to the amendments in the previous group and once again are aimed at understanding exactly why the Government are repealing each of these clauses.
First and foremost, Amendment 106 rightly acknowledges the unique vulnerability of unaccompanied children. Unlike adults, these children do not have the benefit of parental guidance, support or protection, which fundamentally changes the context in which any immigration or removal decision should be made. The exemption from removal under proposed new subsection (1) reflects the humane principle that children, especially those who arrive without guardians, require special consideration. At the same time, the amendment incorporates a balanced discretion for the Secretary of State to make exceptions, but, crucially, only in narrowly defined and principled circumstances. This discretion is limited to cases of family reunion or removal to a safe state to which the child has a clear connection, such as nationality or passport holding. This would ensure that the state maintains the ability to act in the best interests of the child and public policy without resorting to indiscriminate removals.
Amendment 107 would bring much-needed clarity and accountability to the handling of European Court of Human Rights interim measures, in relation to the duty to remove under Amendment 105. Interim measures, often issued to prevent irreparable harm while a full hearing is pending, are a critical tool in safeguarding human rights. However, this amendment rightly recognises that these measures must be balanced with national sovereignty and the Government’s responsibility to manage immigration effectively. First, the amendment would establish that the decision to give effect to a European Court of Human Rights interim measure is the discretionary personal responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. This personal involvement emphasises the gravity of the decision, ensuring that it is not delegated lightly or handled bureaucratically. Such a provision would enhance political accountability, requiring Ministers to engage directly with complex legal and humanitarian issues rather than allowing automatic suspension of removal without sovereign consideration.
Furthermore, by restricting the obligation of immigration officials, courts and tribunals to give effect to the interim measure where a Minister has chosen not to recognise it, the amendment would prevent conflicting mandates within the system. This avoids a confusing legal limbo where different authorities might take contradictory positions regarding removal actions that undermine coherence and efficiency in immigration enforcement. This provision strikes a pragmatic balance between respecting international human rights obligations and preserving the Government’s capacity to maintain effective border control. It avoids rigid, automatic enforcement of interim measures that could paralyse immigration functions while still providing a structured framework to engage with the European court’s decisions.
Amendment 108 is a crucial step towards ensuring the duty in Amendment 105 is not needlessly hobbled, and that anyone who enters illegally is removed no matter who they are. It would tackle head-on abuse of asylum and human rights claims, a process that can delay removals and undermine the integrity of the immigration system. The amendment would make it clear that, for individuals meeting the statutory conditions for removal, any protection claim, human rights claim, trafficking or slavery victim claim or application for judicial review cannot be used to delay or frustrate the removal process.
This is vital. Currently, the system is frequently exploited through repeated and sometimes frivolous claims, causing prolonged uncertainty, administrative backlog and resource drain on the Home Office and courts. Declaring claims inadmissible at the outset when conditions for removal are met would significantly reduce abuse. It sends a strong message that these legal routes are not loopholes for indefinite delay. This also enables faster removal decisions, preserving our ability to control our borders effectively.
We have also included a judicial ouster clause in this amendment to prevent courts from setting aside inadmissibility declarations, promoting legal certainty and finality in removal proceedings. This avoids protracted litigation and vexatious legal challenges, which often tie up judicial resources without improving outcomes for genuine claimants.
Finally, Amendment 111 addresses the question of what support, if any, is available to individuals whose asylum or related claims are declared inadmissible under these amendments. By amending the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and related legislation, the proposed clause ensures that the withdrawal or withholding of support aligns consistently with the inadmissibility framework. This is essential for legal clarity and operational coherence. Without these amendments, there would be a disconnect between the removal of rights to remain and the removal of support, potentially creating gaps or confusion in how support is administered. The amendment ensures that, when a person’s claim is declared inadmissible under the new rules, the support framework adjusts accordingly, reflecting that the individual is no longer entitled to certain forms of state assistance. It also protects the integrity of the asylum support system by preventing those whose claims do not meet the admissibility criteria from accessing support intended for genuine asylum seekers. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know that the Government vigorously opposed the Rwanda Bill, and indeed the Prime Minister described it as a gimmick, or words to that effect. I understand that that is the Government’s position, and I do not expect them to change their mind. But the point worth making is that, although the Rwanda scheme as a whole may not have found favour with the Government, it does not follow that some of the provisions in that Act are not appropriate to whatever policy the Government ultimately may think is appropriate. I know that this is something of a moving picture, as the Minister acknowledged.
I will not repeat what I said in the wrong group in relation to Amendment 107, but I place particular emphasis on that amendment because that issue was a pretty obvious excess of jurisdiction on the part of the European Court of Human Rights. This Government, whatever the final form their policy takes in statutory terms, may find that they have an interim ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that offends natural justice. The fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, quite rightly said—it needs a Minister before a decision is taken to reject it is an important safeguard. It is not a question of casting it aside and ignoring it; it is considered at an appropriate level, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the interim order that the court made under Rule 39. It is important that that provision should be inserted, whatever form the policy takes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the amendment. As I have said previously, the Government are trying to ensure that we have a properly functioning immigration system. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 included provisions that, in my view, prevented asylum decision-making, increased the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to the taxpayer, which we have discussed on other groups.
The Act has largely not been commenced, and it is this Government’s policy—I confirm this to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—that we will not commence the Act, as we have accordingly stated in our manifesto and elsewhere. Therefore, Clause 38 repeals the majority of the measures contained in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including Section 2 on the duty to remove and associated provisions. However, it is not a blanket approach to repealing the Act. The six measures that the Government intend to retain include provisions that are in force and that have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. The Government see all these powers as important tools to allow for the proper operation of the immigration system and to achieve our wider priorities, along with the other measures that we brought forward.
Amendment 106 seeks to retain Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act. I believe this measure to be unnecessary. The new clause would, for example, preserve the power to remove unaccompanied children under 18 in specific circumstances when the duty to remove applies.
Section 55, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to and which Amendment 107 seeks to retain, would provide for a Minister of the Crown to disregard an interim measure of the European Court of Human Rights where the duty to remove applies. I have heard what the noble Lord said. We have made a judgment that we do not need that provision, and therefore this is part of our proposals on the repeal of the Act.
Section 5 of the Illegal Migration Act, which Amendment 108 seeks to retain, would have meant that an asylum claim and/or human rights claim would be declared inadmissible and would not have been substantively considered in the UK where the person had entered or arrived illegally and had not come directly from a country in which their life or liberty were threatened. It would also have meant that an asylum claim and/or human rights claim would have been declared inadmissible if the person was from a country of origin considered generally safe.
Section 9 of the Illegal Migration Act, which Amendment 111 seeks to retain, would ensure that individuals whose claims are disregarded as a result of being subject to the duty to remove and disregard of certain claims provisions—these are a result of amendments we have considered earlier, such as Amendment 105, and now Amendments 108 and 109—are entitled to support only under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This would align their entitlement to support to others declared inadmissible under Sections 80A or 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, akin to that of failed asylum seekers. This clause is also unnecessary.
The sections included in this group of amendments were designed to operate alongside Section 2 of the IMA Act, which imposed the duty to remove. As we are now repealing Section 2, this group of amendments has no legal or practical effect. Leaving them in place would simply create confusion. Repealing these sections is a necessary step to ensure the law reflects the Government’s policy direction and avoids ambiguity. Again, I appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkes, and the Front Bench, but, on the basis of the comments I have made, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained fully why the Government are removing these sections of the Illegal Migration Act and why they oppose these amendments. The first amendment sought to protect unaccompanied children from automatic removal, while allowing for carefully defined exceptions. The second amendment aimed to clarify ministerial discretion when it comes to interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights—a safeguard that balances human rights considerations with the practicalities of border control. The third amendment addressed the worrying practice of disregarding outright certain protections, human-rights trafficking claims and judicial review applications—something that risks undermining access to justice. The fourth amendment ensured the coherence of asylum support provisions in cases where claims are declared inadmissible, preventing gaps and confusion around entitlement to state assistance. I make it clear that these concerns remain very much alive with us and may well be brought forward again in the future. But for now I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“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.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his detailed introduction to Amendment 120. I will start there and then very briefly go back to Amendment 110. I will not repeat what I said earlier or what he has just said.
I have checked every single country on the list where it says, in brackets, “in respect of men”. All of them have similar approaches to gay men in particular, as the noble Lord described. There are a number of European countries that are now doing that, including Hungary and Slovakia. When I was last in Bratislava, we went to place some flowers where a friend of a local had witnessed her two colleagues being shot as they went into a bar. It includes Moldova and a number of other countries which are becoming extremely intolerant.
Going back to Amendment 110, the detailed descriptions in proposed new subsection (3) which start with sex, language and race are helpful, but they are exclusive. They exclude key protected characteristics which we and our courts recognise in this country. Can the Official Opposition say whether there is a particular reason for doing that? For example, the protected characteristic is “religion or belief”, not just religion. There is gender reassignment, sexual orientation and pregnancy and maternity, which is extremely important for not just adult women but young girls, who may be returning to a place where young girls are traded for marriage and pregnancy. The last remaining two are age and—I am sorry to say I do not find this here—disability.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his introduction to Amendments 120 and 110, which respectively seek to retain the Schedule 1 list of countries to which a person subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act could be removed, and the power to amend that list of countries. If noble Lords examine the amendment in detail, they will see that it is reliant on Amendment 105, which we discussed in a previous group and which seeks to retain the duty to remove from the IMA, and a number of other amendments that we have already debated that hinge on these attempts to reinstate the IMA. In a sense, without Amendment 105, which has been withdrawn by the noble Lord, this cannot be implemented. Of course, we have had the debate and I will still answer the points raised.
The Bill does not take a blanket approach to the repeal of the IMA, and the Government intend to retain provisions that have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. However, these amendments do not do that—particularly now that Amendment 105 has been withdrawn. They would have no effect without retention of the duty to remove and associated provisions. Those provisions were introduced for the purposes of the previous Government’s failed Rwanda scheme and, as we have said in the manifesto and beyond, we intend to remove the Rwanda scheme as a whole.
I note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton; they made extremely valid points about the country list and the mechanism for that list. It backs up the provisions that we have mentioned from the Government’s perspective as to why we are not going to progress Amendments 120 and 110. Self-evidently, the previous Government tried and failed to implement those provisions, so even without Amendment 105 it is quite challenging for us to agree to pick up the torch and carry on when the previous Government could not do that themselves. Those policies also brought the system to a standstill. There were thousands of asylum claims put on hold, an increase in the backlog, incredible pressure on the asylum accommodation system and significant cost to the taxpayer. Those are some of the challenges that, even now, the 13 month-old Government are trying to pick up.
Therefore, I cannot support the amendments that seek to reintroduce those measures from the IMA. Through Clause 38, which we have considered already, this Government seek to repeal the majority of the measures contained in the IMA, including the provisions that these amendments seek to retain.
It is also worth noting that this list is, in effect, more restrictive as to where we could remove an individual who has come to the UK unlawfully under well-established powers to remove that we already have in place. Under existing inadmissibility provisions, an asylum claim may be treated as inadmissible if the claimant has previously been present in, or has a connection to, a safe third country where it is considered reasonable to expect them to have sought protection. Under existing powers, we can remove people to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe a person will be admitted.
Therefore, for the reasons given in relation to Amendment 105 and with a strong—I hope—listening message to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I invite the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister sits down, I understand exactly what he said about the list, but how does a tribunal determine in an individual case whether a country is safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have said to the Committee previously that that has to be examined on an individual basis. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given, where a country may be safe but a small region of that country or a protected characteristic of the individual may not be, are judgments that are made based on the evidence put before a tribunal. We will of course examine those issues in detail, but the blanket approach we have here is not appropriate.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to pursue the point, but it seems to be quite important. Therefore, does an individual court have to make an assessment without any guidance from Parliament as to whether, for that individual, with their particular characteristics, a particular country is safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is fair and reasonable for a tribunal to look at those representations accordingly. In this legislation, we are trying to remove the effective provisions which meant that the Rwanda offer was in place under legislation. As we have done through the immigration White Paper and other statements, we are continually monitoring how the practice is going to be implemented once this has been completed. I will certainly reflect on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has made, but the principle before the Committee today is that the list of countries without the provisions we have already agreed are being repealed or the amendment which has already been withdrawn is superfluous. Backed up by the comments of the noble Lord, it also means that what is deemed to be a safe country may not be a safe country. There are elements that can be examined and representations that can be made to ensure that people who either have a characteristic or are from a particular region in a country can make the case to the tribunal that their individual circumstances demand a decision not to be removed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Of course, the Minister is correct that, with the prior amendment having been withdrawn, then as a matter of technicality these amendments, if pressed, would struggle. However, I feel it is important to reiterate the general point being made: that the amendments are not rhetorical but seek to reintroduce practical, enforceable tools that were part of a wider strategy to restore control over our borders.
I apologise for not addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, before now, but the answer is in Amendment 110 and the proposed new clause under discussion: that the power exercised by the Secretary of State has to be a general one—it cannot take account of a particular individual assessment or scenario. That is why in its first subsection the amendment says that the Secretary of State must be
“satisfied that there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution”.
Having made the general point, I would suggest that, thereafter, the Secretary of State is allowed to take into account specificity, in effect, and to say, for instance, that the statement in subsection (1) is true of a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, in relation to a description of person. Therefore, already, a country can be divided into its constituent parts.
Subsection (3) states that the description can include
“sex … language … race … religion … nationality … membership of a social or other group … or… any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this allows a particular attribute or characteristic to come into play. She is right that the various characteristics described in that subsection do not mirror protected characteristics in UK discrimination law. There is an absence of disability; political opinion is not a protected characteristic in UK discrimination law, but it is included in this list. The catch-all in subsection (3)(h) allows that specificity to be created, and for the protection to exist.
In conclusion—
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.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Decisions relating to a person’s age(1) This section applies if a relevant authority decides the age of a person (“P”) who meets the four conditions in section (Duty to make arrangements for removal) (duty to make arrangements for removal), whether that decision is for the purposes of this Act or otherwise.(2) If the decision is made on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, P may not bring an appeal against the decision under section 54(2) of that Act.(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if P makes an application for judicial review of—(a) the decision mentioned in subsection (1), or(b) any decision to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom under this Act which is taken on the basis of that decision.(4) The application does not prevent the exercise of any duty or power under this Act to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom. (5) The court or tribunal must determine the application on the basis that the person’s age is a matter of fact to be determined by the relevant authority; and accordingly the court or tribunal—(a) may grant relief only on the basis that the decision was wrong in law, and(b) may not grant relief on the basis that the court or tribunal considers the decision mentioned in subsection (1) was wrong as a matter of fact.(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) an immigration officer,(c) a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022,(d) a local authority within the meaning of that Part, subject to subsection (7), or(e) a public authority within the meaning of that Part which is specified in regulations under section 50(1)(b) of that Act (referral of age-disputed person for age assessment).(7) This section applies in relation to a decision of a local authority which is a decision within subsection (1) only if it is for the purposes, or also for the purposes, of the local authority deciding whether or how to exercise any of its functions under relevant children’s legislation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.(8) For the purposes of this section, the cases in which a relevant authority decides the age of a person on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 include where a relevant authority is treated by virtue of regulations under section (Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods) of this Act as having decided that a person is over the age of 18.(9) This section applies only in relation to a decision which is made after this section comes into force.(10) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.(11) In section 54(6) (appeals relating to age assessments)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and(c) section (Decisions relating to a person’s age) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (decisions relating to a person’s age).”(12) In section 56(1) (new information following age assessment or appeal), for paragraph (b) (and the “and” at the end of that paragraph) substitute—“(b) an appeal under section 54(2)—(i) could no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time),(ii) has been finally determined, or(iii) may not be brought as a result of section (Decisions relating to a person’s age)(2) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (age assessments relating to removal under that Act), and”.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we all agree that our system must be fair, and that there must be opportunities for proper dialogue and challenge when decisions are made about an individual’s age. That is right, and it is in keeping with our values. However, it is equally clear, and can be argued, that the balance has shifted too far in one direction. We have seen repeated last-minute legal challenges which have little merit but which succeed in frustrating or delaying removals. These are not genuine safeguards; they are tactical devices often deployed to prolong a person’s stay and undermine the integrity of our borders.
Amendment 114 seeks to restore the balance which we identified in government by reintroducing Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. It would ensure that factual decisions on age made by the appropriate authority could not be endlessly relitigated as a matter of opinion before the courts. Legal errors could still, rightly, be challenged, but the endless recycling of disputes over fact would no longer come at the cost of our border security. The Government would retain the power they currently have to remove those who they determine should not remain in the United Kingdom.
If we are to reduce the numbers and regain control of this issue, the Government must have the flexibility to act decisively once the facts have been properly determined. That is the balance we strike here: a system that is fair but firm; that is open to genuine challenge but closed to vexatious delay.
Furthermore, Amendment 115 is about ensuring that we have the tools to make accurate, authoritative determinations on the age of those who arrive here illegally. This information is not a minor detail; it shapes the protections a person is entitled to, the facilities in which they may be placed and the level of safeguarding that must be applied. To make decisions that are safe, appropriate and in the best interests of both the individual and the wider community, we must have reliable information.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments on age assessments moved by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
When we ventilated these issues in 2023, when we were looking at the then Illegal Migration Bill, we had a very good debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was very voluble and passionate about this issue, as one would expect of her, and as we have come to know and love during the course of these debates. However, I think the public have moved on. When we debated the earlier clauses of the Bill, we talked about the crisis of confidence and the lack of public support for any actions taken by parties in government, whether Labour or Conservative. That crisis of confidence is worse than ever now. I do not think that it is improved by anecdotal and media portrayals of people who are quite obviously young men and not children, but who are purporting to be children and using various methods to thwart the reasonable expectation of most people that they should be removed because they should not be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis as asylum seekers.
Therefore, we have to use our common sense here. I regret the fact that the Government seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said earlier that it was a moveable feast, but in fact, she is now a compatriot of the Government on many of the proposals. I know she has always been a compatriot of the Minister, as they both hail from north Wales. However, we have moved on significantly since we debated this issue two years ago. People expect fair and equitable treatment of minors and people purporting to be minors. Therefore, we have to use our common sense.
Often, it is young men—disproportionately so—who are arriving without any identification. They will have disposed of their passports or ID cards and will therefore be able to make the case that they are children or very young people, and there is no identification to disprove that notion. The appearance of young people over 18—facial growth, bone structure, beards and so on—decries the idea that they are allegedly children. They look over 18. Across the world, artificial intelligence and scientific methods are used to ascertain the precise age of young people.
The Government should look more favourably on these amendments, because they were put in the earlier legislation for good reason. I specifically support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth’s amendment, and Amendment 200, because this is not being done surreptitiously; it is being done in the open. You will be able to test the veracity of the scientific assessment, judge it against international comparators and get scientific experts in anatomy to test whether these scientific assessments work. A blanket ban on a reasonable scientific assessment is not the right way to proceed, particularly as this will be a relatively small number of people. There will be a relatively small number of young men claiming they are children. A robust scientific regime to test that and, more importantly, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the regulations the Minister will lay before the House for this scientific assessment and method, is a reasonable position to adopt.
If the Government are seeking to persuade the electorate that they are serious about and committed to tackling the egregious abuses of our border, they must recognise that people pretending to be children—forcing often cash-strapped local authorities to find them a school place or provide a statement of special educational needs and other contingent liabilities and funding—is an issue of public importance, safety and security.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is champing at the bit to disabuse me of my notions. It is unfortunate that the Government and the Minister, for whom I have huge respect, as he knows, have seen fit to remove this provision for no particular reason. He has not made the case for why he is doing that. Therefore, he needs to think again. Hopefully, he will have better news for us on Report. In the interim, naturally, I support all four amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly, before the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because I am unhappy about these amendments. I was very relieved when the Government put forward a situation that would not support them.
I was invited by the charity Safe Passage to attend a drop-in session at its drop-in house in London, where I met two young men. Safe Passage was absolutely satisfied that both of them were 16. They were Afghans; one had a beard, and the other had a moustache. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seems to me to be unsafe, because what we are looking at is Europeans. Europeans do not normally get beards and moustaches under the age of 18, but those who come as refugees and asylum seekers come from all over the world, where they grow up and mature much more quickly.
I was extremely relieved to see the approach of this Government and very disturbed to see these amendments, which I hope will not succeed.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Before the noble and learned Baroness sits down, if I may, for the avoidance of doubt, I was not arguing that it would be merely a subjective assessment or value judgment of appearance: it would be complementary to a robust scientific method, which would be tested both in this House and by other scientists in the course of the work. It would not just be a border officer saying, “You look like a 21 year-old”. The amendments make reference to scientific assessment, which would be an important complementary safeguard that might address the particular concerns of the noble and learned Baroness.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, says, because he did talk about common sense and looking at a person. That is what encouraged me to speak. When I met those two young men, I absolutely took the view that they were over 18, but I was disabused, not only by their age, which was identified, but by the fact that I had been thinking in European terms. That is the danger of what is being said by the Opposition.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I had better rise at this stage to introduce my Amendment 203H. As with my last amendment, the mysteries of grouping have left me slightly confused, because this amendment does not actually relate to the Illegal Migration Act. This is an amendment which I offer to the Home Office as a sensible amendment that will save public money. It will be a sensible and useful use of time, and I implore the Minister, who I know to be a sensible and reasonable person, to look at this carefully.
Amendment 203H refers to the National Age Assessment Board, which was set up under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, before I was in this House—I know there are some noble Lords here who remember the debates about that particular Bill. The Bill presently before the Committee does not repeal any provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act. The National Age Assessment Board was set up by the 2022 Act to bring into the Home Office the system whereby those who claimed to be minors would be assessed. Prior to these provisions coming into force, that was done by local authorities. What had routinely been the case was that a person who purported to be younger than 18 and who wished to challenge a decision would then seek a judicial review of the assessment made by the local authority. There is a whole run of cases in which the courts considered what the test should be, on judicial review, of a social worker’s evaluation of the person’s age. Across the country, different local authorities had different approaches.
In a case called A v Croydon, the Supreme Court, led by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, determined that age assessments would not be made on the usual basis of a judicial review. As noble Lords will be well aware—and I am sorry that I am teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, but in case there is anyone watching who does not know this—a decision on judicial review is not normally taken by means of a court looking at the decision afresh, considering the evidence and taking a decision for itself; instead, what the court does is to look at the decision to see whether it is lawful and not unreasonable in the public law sense, which is classically defined as being so unreasonable that no decision-maker could have reached that decision —the “Oh gosh” test, as it has been described previously.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Jackson, for thinking that they absolutely know where I am coming from, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at least, might be relieved to find that we are on slightly more common ground than he believes. I am going to start backwards; I am going to start with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I happen to have with me the SI on age assessment of asylum-seeking minors, because a number of us did regret Motions for that on 27 November 2023. Initially, the Home Office, of which I think he was a Minister at that point, said that, as per the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee report from October 2022,
“the Home Office will not use the scientific methods to determine an age or age range, but rather use the science to establish whether the claimed age of the age-disputed person is possible”.
Possible is not scientific fact.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me for intervening. I should clarify that the National Age Assessment Board is not using scientific methods, so my amendment has nothing whatever to do with scientific methods. The National Age Assessment Board is using conventional social work methods to identify age.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. One of the problems is that social workers are using exactly those techniques—perhaps not in full, but they are. What is more, the NNAB social workers are paid through the NNAB by the Home Office. They are not independent, which is the other key point we wanted to make. I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said at the start. He said that the public had moved on. But, as a former trustee of UNICEF, I say that my priority has to be the protection of young people who are under 18, and an arrangement for those where it may not be possible to decide that exactly—and we have had many debates about all that.
The issue is not just one of public satisfaction. The public may be very irritated by the young men who are clearly over 18 who are doing this, and that is fine for the system. Those of us who are bringing back amendments, probably on Monday, want to make sure that it is not happening the other way round: that people under 18 are being deemed to be adult. We know that this has happened and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that we might finally see some data on this. Every time I have asked over the last three or four years, there has been no data about those who are deemed to be 18 and over who were under, and, indeed, the other way around. That is important for the Home Office, because it needs to understand about provision for those who are in this very small group, who need to be looked after in a slightly more special way.
By the way, not every young person who is under 18 who goes to a school is going to have special needs. They may need some language support, but not necessarily special needs. They may need emotional support if they have come from a war zone such as Sudan but, if we are saying that they are awaiting assessment as asylum seekers, that is something that this country really ought to be prepared to look at. So I am much more cynical about the NNAB being as truly independent and clear as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was making out. Those of us who have amendments will go over this in detail next week.
I want to go back to Amendments 114 and 115. Young people having no right of appeal contravenes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. They absolutely must have support in complex issues, particularly in a country where they may not speak the language. When the official Opposition were in power, they also refused to let young people who were having age assessments carried over have any access to legal or advisory support during that process. They said it was not necessary. But I have to say that those European countries that use age assessments all have independent support for these young people from that Government’s own process. I particularly pray in aid the Netherlands, because it was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, when he was at the Dispatch Box in the past.
These protections are built in because we have a formal duty to look after those under 18 and, yes, it may be difficult to work out if some are, but we will know about most of them. I really think that the first two amendments need to be reviewed, and I do not think we can support them. I can remember when I read the first full report: it is not as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said. There is always talk about ranges. I do not know about noble Lords, but I have a son of six foot four and he was certainly sprouting a beard by 16 or 17 and was already over six foot. We make mistakes, and I absolutely support what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was saying. You cannot just assume that that is right and, if we get it wrong, you have a young man—they usually are young men—who is put into an adult centre. They then are at risk, and that is on us as a country.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I absolutely applaud the laudable work of UNICEF. The point that I was attempting to make was that we must focus our efforts on weeding out those who are clearly, as she concedes, not reaching the age criteria, so that we can focus on those in most need, who have suffered terror, despotism, trauma et cetera.
Taking the noble Baroness back to the appeals, what is the alternative? If you have an open-ended, liberal, permissive appeals system, it will be gamed by many people. She might want to think about this before she tables an amendment: can you have an appeals system that pays due regard to the universal human rights of children but does not allow the system to be gamed by endless appeals that take months and years?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The problem is that Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, says there is no appeal—full stop, end. None. Therefore, that young person, who probably has English as a second language, whichever side they are and who will be arguing that they are under 18, does not even have the right that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, was talking about, and that worries me. I have argued this for some time, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows, to his cost. I agree that the public are concerned. I have no doubt about that. However, are we only concerned with what the public are concerned about? Do we not need to focus on children who are seeking asylum in this country and can get some help? If we go by, “Well, actually the public don’t want it”, it will all start going the wrong way.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that she is balancing two things here. First, a problem arises if a young person is put into adult accommodation, as she identifies. However, a bigger problem arises if you put an adult who is fraudulently claiming to be a child into facilities for young people. At that point, there is a very significant risk to those young people.
As a House, we have a significant responsibility in this area to ensure that we do not gullibly take people’s claims to be young people, which can put other young people in those homes and facilities at risk. It is very important that the Home Office has a coherent system, which it does, and that the system is capable of review, which of course it is by judicial review. The noble Baroness will agree that there is a balancing act to be performed here.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I have argued before to him, and I say it again, that there is a very straightforward answer. You have smaller group homes for those who are around the borderline, because the protection we need is for the younger ones. The noble Lord is absolutely right that, if we put a load of people in who are over 18, those younger children are at risk. But we do not have to, given the number of children that there are.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the noble Baroness have any figures for the number of young people whose ages are in dispute, because I suspect that there are not that many? We may be worrying about a relatively small number of people compared with the huge number who are seeking asylum.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness and say again to the Minister, who will probably curse me for it, that there is no data and we need that data to understand the size of the problem. It must be not just pure data about age. It must also be about the response when children or young people are placed in the wrong one, and what support they need. I will leave it there.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray. They are interesting amendments because they seek to tackle the same problem by different means. The aim is to have accurate information about age and to require that it be secured.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness’s point about proceedings lasting for ever, but one must not take that point too far. It takes one into authoritarian territory where we really should not be going.
All the points I wanted to make were made much better by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I vividly remember our 2023 debates. Indeed, we are in a time warp with this whole debate. We have been here several times and there are no new points to be made. I remember the ethical, moral and practical arguments about scientific methods being debated.
Although I am sure we did, I cannot remember whether we discussed the equity of the point made in Amendment 115, which says that if the young person refuses to subject himself to a scientific test, because he is scared or whatever, the law will say that he is an adult and a liar. In equity, that seems to me to be a strange thing to put into a statute book. The process of going to law takes a long time, but it is our tradition. To cut it all short by saying, “If you don’t agree to be tested in this particular way then you’re an adult and a liar” seems quite extreme. I cannot remember if the point was debated before. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is going to tell me that he answered it in lapidary terms in 2023.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is of course right to remember those happy exchanges. I draw his attention to the fact that, obviously, there are many examples in the law of presumptions being made if people do not do things: for example, the breath test, as the noble Viscount sitting next to me has just observed. If you say “no comment” in a police interview, inferences will be drawn. It is the same presumption system. There is nothing unusual in terms of the drafting.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
There was discussion about consent, because a child cannot consent. I do not know whether the noble Lord recalls it, but we talked about that fairly extensively.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful—again—for the amendments which have elicited this discussion. I want to put a central premise before the Committee: that age assessments, as has been proved by the contributions of noble Lords today, are a difficult area and no single or combination assessment technique is able to determine age with precision. But as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, there are serious safeguarding issues if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding risks in treating children as adults. We have to try to improve the performance on age assessment and get it right. The Government treat this issue with real seriousness and with the importance it demands, and we will continue to explore with partners how we can improve the robustness of age-assessment processes by increasing the reliability of the methods used.
That leads me to the amendments before the Committee today. Amendment 114 seeks to incorporate Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is subject to repeal, into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The fact that we are already repealing that means that we are revisiting again, as we are on a number of amendments, things that the Government are seeking to repeal. The provision—the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, referred to this—concerns decisions relating to a person’s age and would bring into effect measures to disapply the statutory rights of appeal in the Nationality and Borders Act, which, if commenced, enable a person to bring an appeal challenging a decision on their age. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the difficulties of that. The provision applies only to individuals subject to the Section 2 duty to remove in the IMA, which itself is under repeal in the Bill.
I know what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr has said, and I feel that I am going around in a number of circles, but the impact is the same. We are repealing these sections; the official Opposition are trying to put them back in. We cannot put them back in because we are repealing these sections. At the end of the day we are still trying to improve the performance on age assessment for the public and the immigration system. We are committed to focusing on delivering long-term, credible policies and will try to ensure that we do that by retaining only measures of the IMA which we have assessed as offering operational benefit. As I have said, we are repealing most of the measures, including Section 2, the duty to remove. Therefore, Sections 57 and 58, relating to age assessments, which this amendment seeks to reinstate, are both unworkable and indeed irrelevant without the duty to remove. The circular movement continues.
There are robust processes in place to verify and assess an individual’s age where there is doubt. It is important that we do so, and I again emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that these are important matters to get right. Where an individual claims to be a child without any credible documentary evidence and where there is reason to doubt the claimed age, immigration officers will currently conduct an initial decision on age to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or an adult. Where doubt remains following the initial decision, which occasionally it does, individuals will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age, in the form of the acknowledged Merton-compliant age assessment.
The Government are committed to improving age-assessment practices to enable all individuals to be safeguarded and treated appropriately, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Murray has mentioned. We have retained—as again the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has referred to—the National Age Assessment Board, which was launched on 31 March 2023 by the previous Government. It is now being rolled out nationally, continues to offer significant improvements, and has the support now of over 55 expert social workers whose task it is to support local authorities by conducting comprehensive age assessments, increasing capacity, and putting expertise in the system. Since its launch, 77 local authorities have signed up to the work of the NAAB. Greater consistency in age-assessment practice is now the case; improved quality of decision-making is there. Well over 1,137 individuals, predominantly social workers from local councils, are responsible for conducting age assessments, and the training has received positive feedback from local authorities.
Those are all positive things, and I again pay tribute to the hands that laid on those regulations and efforts previously. It is all very good, positive stuff. The Home Office, with the support of the Department for Education, has also commissioned user research into age assessment processes, with participation from Home Office members of staff, non-governmental organisations, local councils, accommodation providers and others. It has already started to implement positive change following the research that we have undertaken, and we are currently reviewing initial decisions on age training that have been received by Home Office staff at, for example, the Western Jet Foil premises in Kent.
Amendment 203H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others have said, restrict the jurisdiction of the court to determine applications for judicial review brought against a decision on age made by the National Age Assessment Board on conventional public law grounds such as rationality, reasonableness and procedural fairness. The court would be unable to grant relief because it considers that the board’s decision on a claimant’s age is wrong as a matter of fact. It would also prevent the court from substituting its own decision on age. This is an important point, as it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court which held that the court is required to determine for itself the age of the claimant as an issue of fact.
In addition, this amendment would result in a court treating challenges brought against decisions on age made by the board differently from challenges brought against decisions on age made by a local authority.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his thoughts on that. That is the whole point. The thrust of my submission was that the Supreme Court got the law wrong in that instance. The creation of the National Age Assessment Board as an expert body means that the situation is different from that which pertained when the Supreme Court made that earlier decision. That is why the Home Office should trust its own expert social workers and grasp this opportunity to accelerate the pace and change the test that the court is using.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think we are going to have an honest disagreement on this amendment. I am grateful for the thought that the noble Lord has put into this, but I again put it to him that the amendment would result in a court treating challenges brought against decisions on age made by the board differently from challenges brought against decisions on age made by a local authority. We are going to have to part company on that, for the moment at least.
Amendments 115 and 200, tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, concern scientific methods of age assessment. Repealing Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill seeks to do, will not affect the provisions related to scientific methods of age assessment set out in the NABA and the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2024, such as the power to use X-rays and MRI scans and to take a negative inference on the credibility of a person who refuses consent where there are no reasonable grounds to do so.
Amendment 200 looks to have the Secretary of State lay regulations under Section 52 within six months. Regulations have already been made under this power. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section 58 of the IMA. Again, the Bill will repeal that section, although Amendment 115 would reintroduce it as a clause in this Bill. We are going round again in the circle of life on the amendments to this Bill.
In any case, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that these amendments seek to achieve unless and until satisfied that the scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods do not currently meet this threshold. Again, we can have a debate about the ECHR, but that is where the Government currently are.
The Government will continue to explore the latest developments in things such as artificial intelligence and age assessment technologies to ensure that we have the most accurate information available. Facial age estimation is promising and potentially cost effective, allowing early assessments, and it could produce useful results far more quickly than potential methods of scientific age assessments such as the bone X-rays mentioned by noble Lords and MRI scans. It requires only a facial image, and we will look at how that develops.
Again, the IMA was part of the previous Government’s initiative. We are repealing the IMA but will not compromise on border security. We remain fully focused on long-term credible policies. For that reason, I invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Cameron and Lord Murray, not to push these amendments at this time.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Is there a plan to publish this in annual form at some point in the future? We need that data.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have heard what the noble Baroness said. I will reflect on that point. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Minister anticipated my point, and the noble Baroness put it much more clearly. I was going to ask whether there would be periodic production of qualitative and quantitative data around the numbers coming in. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, we are debating in the dark on numbers—we need the numbers. But the Minister answered the question, for which I thank him.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for our agreement on the answering of the question and I retain my position. I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords. That was an informative if not intriguing debate, and I shall be brief in closing our discussion on this group. I return to the central principle that has underpinned all my remarks: our immigration system must be balanced. It must allow for proper dialogue, proper challenge and proper safeguards, but it must also be able to function effectively. The system serves a vital purpose: it protects our borders, it maintains public confidence in our Government’s ability to protect us and it upholds the rule of law. If we allow it to become paralysed by delays, backlogs and spurious challenges, it fails not only in its legal duties but in its duty to the British people.
We on this side of the House are rightly concerned that removing these clauses will jeopardise that balance and that, without them, the Government’s ability to take timely authoritative decisions and to act on them will be weakened—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not want to break the noble Lord’s chain of thought, but information has just been supplied to me that we now have on the government website the number of age disputes raised, the number of age disputes resolved, the number of adults found to be children, et cetera. That information is available now on GOV.UK, and I will supply further details to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government should either reintroduce these provisions or make it clear to this House here and now how they intend to prevent the harm that their removal will cause. Without such assurances, we cannot be confident that our borders will be secure, that our processes will be respected or that the British public can have faith in the system that serves it. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord German
“Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—(a) sections 12 to 65;(b) sections 68 and 69.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116 and 118 in my name. This is a bit of a reversal, because it is looking not at what is happening but at what is left behind. I am asking the Government to consider this in some detail, so I am worried that the Minister may have some difficulty answering all the questions. If it is not possible, I am hopeful that we will get the answers in writing later.
The position is this. We support the repeal of the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. What I am concerned about is what policy is left behind when you take those out. As it stands, in several places the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will become the default directive, even though this was not regarded as being something of satisfaction when that Bill went through this House, so there are concerns about what is left in that area. This amendment brings together a range of issues, presenting the Government with the opportunity to explain the continuing concerns about the aspects of the Nationality and Borders Act that they have chosen to not repeal in this Bill but to rely on in sections where the IMA has been taken out from it.
There are sections of the Nationality and Borders Act which worsen the risk of violations of human rights, build further delays into the asylum system and increase the likelihood of legal challenges and judicial reviews in the future. I will dwell on several sections, but there are more than I am speaking about in the whole of this area. Section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act is officially paused, but it allows for differential treatment between different groups of refugees, dependent on how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister explain why the Government wish to retain that ability, even though it has not been brought in yet? Why are the Government retaining this section? If it is for operational benefit again, it would be useful to know what the operational benefit is.
The main issue of concern with Section 13 of the Nationality and Borders Act is that subsection (9) could lead to people being held in accommodation centres, including at such large sites as Wethersfield, for lengthy periods of time. Before the Nationality and Borders Act, there was a limit of a continuous period of six months, which could be extended to nine months by the Secretary of State. This section of the NaBA enables the Secretary of State to increase the time. There are ongoing concerns about the conditions of asylum accommodation, particularly the large sites such as Napier and Wethersfield, and there seems to be a pattern of repeating mistakes rather than learning from them. Safeguards are therefore important and it is concerning that this section, which we will fall back on, would enable people to be accommodated at such sites with no indication of how long they will be there for. My personal experience when I visited Wethersfield was that it was quite clear that, when people understood that they were going to be there for a maximum of nine months, it reduced the concerns and increased the well-being of residents. So, having a time limit is very important.
Section 14 is about safe countries, but we have already debated that. Section 18, which is not in force, creates a requirement to provide evidence. The argument about this is that it can only lead to additional bureaucracy for the Home Office. Providing evidence is part of the existing process for applying for asylum. If evidence is provided at appeal which could have been provided at the initial decision stage, the immigration judge will seek an explanation for this, and that could impact an individual’s credibility. With very tight deadlines, it could be a short window of time to provide the evidence. Also, it might be difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to provide the necessary evidence if they are unrepresented, and more than half of asylum claimants are currently without legal representation owing to the legal aid shortage.
Section 19, which is not in force, amends the assessment of whether to treat a person as truthful. That may be a straightforward assessment, but I do not know how it might work. Sections 20 to 25—also not in force, but the Government are retaining them—relate to priority removal notices, which warn people that they are being prioritised for removal. The person then needs to respond in the cut-off period. If they respond late, it will damage their credibility unless they have a good reason.
The concern about this is that a late claim is not necessarily without merit. It can take time for people to make a claim, because they are suffering from trauma relating to torture or sexual violence. It is unclear whether these reasons could be included in the good reason element of the priority removal notice, but it builds on a culture of disbelief in a decision-making process that already exists and is widely relied on. The inference is that not providing responses in time indicates the poor credibility of a person, which could result in improper refusal of protection claims.
Section 27 creates, although it has not yet happened, an accelerated detained appeal system in the First-tier Tribunal, which can be used for any detained appeal if it is considered that the appeal is likely to be disposed of expeditiously using the fast-track procedure. At the time, of course, it was an attempt by the Government to revive the detained fast-track scheme, but the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful in 2015, and it described the timetable for such appeals as so tight that it was inevitable that a significant number of appellants would be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases. So what is the operational reason for retaining the ability to have an accelerated detained appeals system? If there is an operational reason for it, perhaps the Minister could tell us.
Section 29 makes it possible to move someone to a safe third country when their asylum claim is pending—not when it has been determined but when it is pending. In other words, while there is an appeal going on or a claim is being determined by the Home Office, you could deport someone in that process. That removes important rights of appeal. Members of this Committee will remember that, when we discussed the difficulty with the Rwanda scheme, people were going to have to make appeals from another country, and it would have been very difficult to maintain any means of correct procedure in that respect.
I am sorry this speech is quite long, but these are very important issues. Each one of them is about what the Bill does in making this the fall-back position that we are falling on.
Sections 30 to 38 require decision-makers to interpret the refugee convention in ways that do not accord with the long-settled meaning of that convention. We may already have had that discussion earlier today, and most of the interpretations concern Article 1A(2), which of course we have talked about, and we will further exhaust that when I talk about Amendment 118 in a moment.
Sections 40 to 41 relate to the criminalisation of asylum seekers. Those who arrive outside official routes in the UK, and people who facilitate arrivals, are committing an offence under this Act and are liable to prosecution. I understand the difficulties that there are with that one, but it is one that the Government need to describe so we have it on the record as to why that is important.
Sections 42 to 47 significantly expand maritime enforcement powers for pushbacks in international waters, removing the requirement to consider the duty of rescue. That is a fundamental in international maritime law; although it may not have been used yet, this is what the law will now say and it is important to understand why the Government want to retain that.
Sections 49 to 57 deal with age assessments, which we have just dealt with in the previous group, and Sections 58 to 63 exclude people, including children, from modern slavery protections if they have received a prison sentence of 12 months or more, even if the offence was committed as a result of their exploitation. The Government have distanced themselves in that respect from some, or indeed many, of these issues, so the question is why they are being kept.
I turn to Amendment 118, which is really an exploration of changes in the rates of refusal of asylum, which is particularly marked in in relation to Afghans, Iranians and Eritrean people claiming asylum. There has been a dramatic decline in the initial grant rate of asylum applications from those three countries. In the last two years of the previous Government, the grant rate of Afghan asylum claims stood at 98%. In the first year of this Government, that grant rate more than halved to 44%; the average grant rate for Afghans across the EU as a whole was 72% in Q1 of 2025. Eritrean grant rates are down by 13%; those of Iranians reduced by 26%. I do not observe any positive changes inside those countries during the relevant periods—certainly no change in Eritrea. The Taliban rule has been more oppressive and the human rights situation in Iran remains dire.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
The amendments in this group do not require a great deal of commentary from this side of the House. It will not come as any great surprise to the noble Lord, Lord German, given that his Amendment 116 proposes removing the majority of the 2022 Act, and we have spent the last few hours trying to reinsert the Illegal Migration Act, that we do not agree with the amendment.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply. We have made this point many times. We believe that the number of people coming into this country illegally is far too high and we must take urgent steps now to stop this happening, with a strengthened legal regime, not a weakened regime, to tackle this issue. The noble Lord’s amendment would weaken and undermine our efforts to remove those who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. I cannot say more than that.
Amendment 118 relates to the impact assessment. We on these Benches are not opposed to the principle of reviewing the impact of government policy, but we do not recognise the justification given for this; nor do we believe that this amendment is necessary. Therefore, with those brief remarks, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed questions. At 10.19 pm, it is a great test of stamina to examine those issues in some detail. The noble Lord is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed. I should start by making it very clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, as I have mentioned before. We want it to operate swiftly, fairly and firmly, and to ensure that the rules are properly enforced. That means we need to deal with the backlog of issues that are before the House as a whole.
The noble Lord raised a number of particular issues. I am very happy to go through the detail I have on inadmissibility of asylum claims, the UK’s interpretation of key concepts of the refugee convention, and Sections 30 to 39. If he wants me to do that now, I can. If he wants me to write to him so he can reflect on it more slowly, before Report, I can do that. I am happy to take his advice on how he wishes me to respond.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister. As I said at the beginning, it would be very helpful to have it in writing so that, as he rightly says, we can reflect on it in the greater time we will have available to us.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have before me in my notes a full encyclopaedia of responses to the many points the noble Lord made, and I am very happy to go through them. However, it may be more sensible—given the hour and the fact that the noble Lord will not, I suspect, be pushing these amendments to a Division this evening—if I reflect on what he said in Hansard and respond to those points with clarity, using this document. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library, so that other Members can see the detail. In my view, this would speed up the response and give some clarity to the noble Lord, so he can reflect on whether he wishes to return to these matters on Report. If that is satisfactory, it would seem to be a useful way of progressing.
With that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, pending any discussion and response to the letter I will send him.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what we were hoping for from this amendment: to understand the Government’s intention in these various areas. I am grateful for his response, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.
Lord German
“A three-month service standard for asylum casework(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework.(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.
Lord German (LD)
I will be as brief as I possibly can, given the hour. What is important in this amendment is to try to return to having a service standard. The amendment proposes a three-month service standard to determine asylum decisions. I know that the Minister, and others in the past, have looked at the issue and whether it might be six months. The important question here is whether there should be a service standard for dealing with these matters.
The history of this is that a service standard to decide 98% of straightforward asylum applications within six months was introduced in 2014 after a report which criticised delays in asylum decision-making. Of the claims that were submitted from March 2014 to the end of the year, only 8% received a decision within six months. In the second quarter of 2018, 56% of decisions were received within six months. In the third quarter of 2018, 25% received a decision within six months. Subsequent to that, the service standard was abandoned.
The reasons given by the Government at that time were:
“We have moved away from the six-month service standard to concentrate on cases with acute vulnerability and those in receipt of the greatest level of support, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. … Additionally, we will prioritise cases where an individual has already received a decision but a reconsideration is required. … the current service standard does not always allow us to prioritise applications from the most vulnerable people in the system if their claim is ‘non-straightforward’”.
That told me that there is a sort of on-off switch and a whole range of categories, and the Home Office would move the arrow to whichever one it thought was the most concerning at the time. I know that, in the context of things such as accident and emergency departments in the health services around this country, having a service standard is an important way—though it may not be kept—of having that focus.
Therefore, this seems to be an issue of prioritisation. The Home Office says that it can prioritise different targets or different circumstances rather than having a service standard. There was a large backlog of 91,000 at the end of 2024, with the associated costs to the taxpayer and slow decision-making hampering integration. Of those waiting for an initial decision, around 50,000 people had been waiting for more than six months. Arguing for a new service standard means that we could speed things up, because people would have a standard in mind.
I know that the Minister has dealt with this in the past in response to questions, but I would be grateful if he could say whether the Government have reviewed the potential benefits of reintroducing a service standard, what the current prioritisation is for asylum decision-making, and, of course, what the Government are doing to reduce the backlog.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. I was not proposing to speak to it until recently. I may well have it wrong, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the position. I think I read that arrangements have been put in place for bonuses for caseworkers who meet a standard. As I recall it, it was a very small amount of money, but if the Minister could tell the Committee what the standard is for asylum applications and say something about that bonus, it would be helpful. I am trying to ask that in a very neutral fashion.
I have Amendment 195, to which my noble friend has his name, relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the system. Obviously, artificial intelligence is going to be used. Asking whether it is used is probably like asking whether electricity is going to be used—of course it is these days. As this is about data as well, we start from the position that migrants are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. Immigration, asylum seeking and refugee matters are civil matters, and any interference with privacy must be proportionate and subject to safeguards. I think we would all agree that our data is valuable, it is very precious, and that generally it needs regulation and oversight, and transparency is hugely important.
When I chaired the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, every Home Secretary we questioned assured us that the human would remain in the loop. Frankly, we were sceptical about what that really meant and the efficacy of it. The data subject must know what the authorities know, or think they know, about him. There is a lot more public discourse now about training of AI, but I doubt that we are all completely reassured about that. Immigration decisions are hugely impactful; they are life changing. The amendment would ensure that no machine alone may determine a person’s immigration fate, and that personal data remained insulated from algorithmic training.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree to a degree with the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We may not agree on everything, but we are, in this small way, united. I shall speak briefly on the other amendments in this group, before turning to those in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron.
On Amendment 119, it is right that asylum casework should be completed as quickly as possible. Delays are costly to the taxpayer and to public confidence in the asylum system. When cases drag on for extended periods, it not only increases the financial burden but undermines the perception that our system is effective, fair and controlled.
However, while I support the principle behind the amendment, I have concerns about the rigidity of imposing a legal service standard. What happens when the limit is breached? Would this create a new legal avenue for challenge, further delaying removals and adding yet more strain to the system? The real solution lies not only in faster processing but in reducing the pressures in the first place. While I support the intention behind the proposal, I believe that our priority must remain on addressing the root causes of the pressure and not just on setting ambitious targets that may ultimately prove counterproductive.
We also have some sympathy for Amendment 195. It concerns a matter that this side has raised in relation to other Bills currently going through the House, such as the fraud, error and recovery Bill. When decisions are being taken that greatly affect the life of another person, we need to have some guarantee of human involvement. I therefore welcome this as an opportunity for the Minister to set out how AI will be used in this process.
I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend. Amendment 201 would compel the Government to produce a report into the cost of providing asylum support. The British people engage with the principle of asylum in good will; they want to see those who are genuinely in need of protection given the support they require. That is a national characteristic of which I am proud. However, part of maintaining that good will is being open and honest about the costs involved. We have all seen what happens when there are information gaps: mistrust grows, narratives fill the space and confidence in the system is undermined; the Government then lose control, and it does not matter what they have done or delivered as it all becomes noise in a vacuum. Our amendment therefore seeks to address that by ensuring that the Government provide a comprehensive report on the cost of providing asylum support. Transparency should not be something that the Government resist; it is a hallmark of good governance.
Finally, Amendment 202 would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of proposals for the establishment of third-country removal centres. We, on this side of the Committee, have been clear that we are facing a massive, escalating and serious problem with illegal entry into the United Kingdom. If Ministers are serious about ending the crisis in the channel, they must be willing to consider the full range of options, and this review will be a vital step towards that.
Taken together, our two amendments are about realism, transparency and ambition: realism in recognising that our current approach is not working; transparency in being honest with the British people about the costs and consequences of our policies; and ambition in being prepared to consider tougher, more effective measures that match the scale of the challenge we face. The public’s patience is wearing thin and their confidence in the system will not be restored by half-measures. These proposals would give the Government the tools, evidence and mandate to act decisively.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Front Benches for their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled an amendment to introduce a new service standard. I want to thank them for the amendment, as it helpful to look at that. We absolutely agree that there needs to be a properly functioning, effective immigration system. Our asylum processes should be not just efficient but robust. We are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. We want to ensure that protection is granted as soon as possible so that people can start to integrate and rebuild their lives, including by obtaining employment when they have the right to do so. As such, I want to provide reassurance of the important steps we are already taking to achieve this aim.
As I have said on a number of occasions, during the passage of the Bill as well as in Questions and Statements, we have inherited a very large backlog, which we are trying to clear at pace. We are delivering the removals of people with no right to be in the UK, and we want to ensure that we restore the system very quickly. By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals. We have taken steps to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system. We have put in resources to ensure that we can do that at pace. That is why we are also looking at the efficiency of appeals and decisions, which we see to be of paramount importance.
The Bill proposes setting up a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks for the First-tier Tribunal to dispose of supported asylum appeals and appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders. The measures aim to speed up the appeal decisions, to ensure that we increase tribunal capacity and have a timely consideration of appeals. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agree with me that the work that we are conducting at pace is appropriate and is having a real impact now on the size of the backlog. Although we cannot discuss the three-month time scale proposed in the amendment, I can reassure them that it is certainly on our agenda.
Amendment 195 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looks particularly at generative AI tools to support caseworkers. I want to emphasise that no immigration decision is made solely by automatic decision-making, for there is still always a human eye on the decision-making. It is important that case summarisation and policy search tools, both of which are designed to help decision-makers, mean that we have improvements and efficiency in that process, which is also helping to reduce the backlog, which we want.
We have had an evaluation of the tools to date. We published that on GOV.UK in May. Therefore, we can demonstrate that the new technologies, such as AI, can potentially save around an hour per case, which is allowing decision-makers to access information more easily and to streamline the asylum process without, I hope, compromising the quality of the decisions.
Ethics and data protection are at the forefront of the considerations—the noble Baroness has mentioned that. The Home Office is taking significant steps to ensure that, where we trial and adopt AI in decision-making, we do so responsibly and in a way that maintains public confidence and that any tools are being trialled and are used to assist Home Office staff. With those assurances, I hope that she will not press her amendment.
The noble Baroness also mentioned other issues, which I will return to in a moment.
Amendment 201 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, addresses ensuring transparency in the asylum system. I hope he will understand that we think the amendment is unnecessary, not because it is not right that he presses us on this, but because, as we have discussed throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, the cost of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers has grown significantly. I have put those proposals before the House as a whole. This is a due in large part to the strain we have had on the asylum system in recent years, including the number of unprocessed claims and a record number of arrivals via small boats. We are taking steps to reduce the cost and ensure public funds are managed responsibly.
I understand the intention behind this amendment; it aims to enhance transparency and provide Parliament with a clear picture of how asylum support is being delivered. But I note that the information that the noble Lord is requesting is published each year in the Home Office’s annual accounts. The figures are publicly available and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and we remain committed they are as clear and comprehensive as possible.
The amendment seeks a breakdown of the proportion of asylum seekers who have had their claims denied but are still receiving support. It may be helpful to note that failed asylum seekers can, under certain conditions, remain eligible for support, for example if they are taking steps to leave the UK or face temporary barriers. They are all important issues. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but that information is already available.
I will touch on this issue briefly, because I have the information on my phone, which will lose its signal and sign out if I do not look at it immediately. On the issue of rewards and bonuses for staff that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, there is a consistent delivery of high-quality work and professional behaviour. We want to ensure that asylum decisions are subject to stringent quality checks, with individual performance targets agreed with managers and reviewed regularly to ensure that the high standards expected are consistently met. I will give her more information about the bonus scheme—as far as I can—after the discussions today.
I should also say, in passing, that all claimants will receive a written transcript of any interview that has taken place, and they can also have an audio recording of that. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness about the issues she has put before me.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
They have been entitled to receive the transcript; the problem is that people are not told that they are entitled to have it, and I wonder whether the Minister can take that back. I will have to come back in writing on the details of the use of AI. With regard to performance standards and targets and so on, I asked about some details of the scheme. Can he come back to me in writing on that? What he read out, about keeping up standards and so on, I hope we would all take for granted as being exactly the basis on which the work is done, but the detail of the bonuses and so on—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that we can agree that we will examine Hansard tomorrow to determine the information required from each of us and provide it in the fullness of time.
On Amendment 202, I thank noble Lords for their interest in ensuring transparency in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. I think the amendment is unnecessary. On 15 May, the Prime Minister set out that we are actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable and what reduces the impact of migration on the British public. The hubs could facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers. It is not the Rwanda model; the return hub proposal is fundamentally different. It does not outsource asylum decision-making but targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts. Details of any agreements and associated policy would be made publicly available when the time is right. I hope that, at that stage, in the event of any schemes progressing, we could have some scrutiny and take decisions accordingly. I give him a commitment that we will publish such details in the event of any scheme progressing. In the light of those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say on the service standard that he would take that into consideration or look at the matter. I also heard him say that there is a standard already, upon which appeals would be completed. In a sense, that is what a service standard is: you are setting targets for what you want to happen. If that is the case and both those things are factually accurate—we can look at Hansard—then I think that starts to satisfy what we are looking at here. Obviously there will be some more questions on the detail, but it seems to me that it is therefore appropriate for me to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
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.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful again, as ever, to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their amendments. I give them the general assurance that we are committed to ensuring that those seeking immigration advice and services can access a regulated and competent advice sector, and the clauses in the Bill as drafted will strengthen the availability of good-quality regulated immigration advice and therefore bolster access to justice. Therefore, we hope that the amendments will not be pressed either today or at a later stage, but I just want to explain why.
As she has just completed her comments, let me begin with Amendment 128 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is intended to probe whether access to justice will be impeded if fees are higher than the cost of the services provided under those fees. The amendment tabled would remove the ability of the Secretary of State—that is, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—and the commissioner to charge fees for a function that may exceed the cost of exercising that function, as well as removing the safeguards related to that ability. The noble Baroness may be aware that under the Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, the basic principle is that fees and charges should be set at a level to recover costs. The fees charged to advisers for applications for registration or continued registration with the commissioner are not currently at full cost recovery levels. Quite frankly, in the current economic climate, that position is no longer sustainable.
Changes to the charging power will reduce the burden on the taxpayer. As drafted, new subsections (3) and (4) will allow for an average of the cost of providing services across organisations to be charged, rather than attempting to make a calculation of the number of hours spent on providing services to one organisation versus another, which would not be feasible. This approach is in accordance with Treasury rules on managing public money. Different fee levels for different types of users should reflect differences in average costs for providing the services to those groups, and ensuring that fees are proportionate to organisation size will, I believe, help bolster access to justice. We may have some reflection on that, but that is the initial point I put to the noble Baroness on her amendment.
There are a number of amendments from His Majesty’s Opposition. I will deal first with Amendment 125 which, with consequential amendments, aims to alter the type of secondary instrument used to charge fees in respect of certain commissioner functions from an order to regulations. This would make regulations specifying the fees chargeable by the commissioner subject to the affirmative procedure under Section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The measure in this Bill replaces the current power to charge fees by order set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As the new charging power in the Bill is to be inserted into the 1999 Act, the use of an order as a relevant statutory instrument ensures drafting consistency between this Bill and current legislation. The negative procedure is considered appropriate to afford an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, and of course I remind all noble Lords that the negative procedure can be prayed against and there can be a debate accordingly.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Is the Minister saying that there is to be an exercise of averaging out the fees, so that we are talking about total cost and total fees, but they might not be absolutely exact for the particular function; however, taken overall, they will not exceed the total amount?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will give a one-word answer, which I hope will be helpful. Yes.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for comprehensively explaining the Government’s position on these probing amendments. I listened very carefully to what he said. I was not entirely convinced by all of it, but satisfied enough that, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the retrospective element of the changes made by this clause.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 131, I will also speak to Amendments 132 to 135 and Amendment 210 in my name. First, this amendment would provide a time limit of 28 days’ detention for persons detained for immigration purposes; secondly, it would introduce general criteria for detention to ensure that detention for the purpose of removal would be used only when strictly necessary and proportionate, and when the person can be shortly removed; thirdly, it would ensure effective judicial oversight of detention via the First-tier Tribunal, with automatic bail hearings after 96 hours of detention.
I tabled this amendment because, having engaged with the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, visited immigration detention centres and spoken to current and ex-detainees, I believe that it is a change that needs to happen. When I visited an immigration removal centre last year and spoke to detainees and staff, it was made clear to me that case progression for immigration detainees is slow and hampered by staff shortages. Further to this, detainees were unaware of the progress on their cases and when they could expect to leave detention or be removed. Communication to them was minimal and this clearly led to despair and frustration with the lack of hope for the future.
In its 2025 report on the progress of Harmondsworth IRC, the inspectorate noted that case progression was poor in six of the eight cases reviewed. The inspectorate reports common reasons for excessive periods of detention as including
“poor case progression; delays obtaining travel documentation; delays in securing appropriate release accommodation; and failures or delays in recognising high levels of vulnerability.”
With no limit on how long someone can be detained and no set time for their detention, there is no incentive for or pressure on the Home Office to make swift, accurate decisions.
A time limit set at 28 days, together with automatic bail hearings, would ensure sufficient time for the Home Office to proceed with removal in circumstances where impediments to these processes, such as outstanding legal appeals or unavailability of travel documents, have already been resolved.
In 2024, more than 50% of people held in immigration detention by the Home Office were later released back into the community under some form of immigration bail—a clear indication that the detention was likely unnecessary or even unlawful. According to the most recent Home Office annual report and accounts published on 17 July, from 2024 to 2025 the Government paid out compensation for unlawful wrongful detention in 334 cases, totalling £10.4 million. In 2023-24, there were 838 cases, totalling £11.8 million. This is clear evidence that significant numbers of people are detained wrongly or unlawfully each year. Without their having access to appropriate legal appeals or processes, the Home Office could have continued to detain them.
These amendments intend to significantly reduce the incidence of unnecessary detention and reduce the considerable suffering and inefficiency inherent in the current detention system. This would help to ensure that immigration detention is used only when a person has exhausted all appeals and removal is imminent and no viable alternatives are available. I appreciate that the Government will state that immigration detention is not indefinite. Indeed, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum recently stated:
“Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 18.]
The point here, of course, is that for the individual that experience can be indefinite, but there is certainly no straightforward answer when people ask that question.
The call for a statutory time limit on immigration detention has been made consistently by lots of expert bodies, including, of course, the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Independent Monitoring Boards, the British Medical Association, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Bar Council and, of course, the Brook House Inquiry. So against that, there is a mound of evidence in favour of these amendments.
Even in the most serious criminal cases, judicial oversight of detention is required after 36 hours and individuals must be released from detention after 96 hours if charges are not laid. Those suspected of terrorism offences can be held for a maximum of 14 days. Further to this, the statutory purpose of immigration detention is to effect removal, not to serve as indefinite detention to prevent reoffending.
Conditions in IRCs are often harsh and prison-like, with people routinely locked in cells for up to 12 hours a day. In a recent report on an IRC, the Chief Inspector of Prisons noted:
“A longstanding and fundamental problem was that all immigration detainees at Brook House, who should be held in relaxed conditions with minimal restrictions, were instead in an institution that looked and felt like a prison”.
The centre simply did not have enough space or experienced staff to manage an increasingly vulnerable population. Behind that, of course, we have the Brook House Inquiry, published in 2023, which recorded over a five-month period 19 incidents or acts of omission capable of amounting to mistreatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
Reducing the period of detention is therefore important in reducing harm. When this proposal has been debated previously, the concern has been expressed that detainees will run down the clock to frustrate removal and subsequently be granted release. But the amendment permits re-detention beyond the period of 28 days when there has been a material change of circumstances which could, for example, include a situation when an individual’s appeal rights are exhausted or a travel document is issued.
There are, however, a range of criminal sanctions available under Section 26 of the Immigration Act 1971 that enable anyone seeking to frustrate the system to be prosecuted. Under these proposals, the tribunal can refuse to grant bail if removal restrictions are set and removal is to take place within the following 21 days. Further, these proposals do not impact the broad powers of the First-tier Tribunal to set conditions for immigration bail under paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. These include reporting and residence conditions, financial conditions and such other conditions as it deems fit. These proposals all exempt cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain was taken in the interest of national security.
I would like to probe the Minister on another avenue to reducing time in immigration detention. For people serving a sentence of imprisonment who have been issued with a deportation notice in prison, custodial sentences provide sufficient time for immigration cases to be resolved. In this time, the Home Office can obtain the travel documents and make arrangements to facilitate a person’s lawful and efficient deportation on release from prison—in other words, a straight-through process without having to go through the intermediary steps and the time that that takes.
As a way of reducing the cost and harm of immigration detention, will the Minister consider the merits of progressing individuals’ criminal deportation cases while they are serving their sentences? Further to this, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, following his inspection in 2022-23, stated that the Home Office was “not making best use” of the early removal scheme or the facilitated return scheme. These schemes could also reduce numbers entering immigration detention.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. We on this side of the House oppose Amendment 131 on the grounds that it undermines a key provision of the borders Bill and creates a two-tier system where some people are rightly subject to stricter conditions but others are not. The amendment would, in effect, disapply these provisions from individuals who ought to be subject to them. If these provisions are, as noble Lords rightly recognise, necessary to strengthen our ability to act, then surely they should apply equally to all relevant cases from the moment the Act comes into force.
We on this side also oppose Amendment 132, which would result in the release of people from detention possibly before any determination had been made on them and before we could be assured that it was safe and in the national interest to do so. This would result in the release of people when their identities remained unclear and we did not know why they were here or what threat they might pose to the country. We know of cases where people who arrived here illegally went on to plan and very nearly execute major terrorist attacks sponsored by hostile foreign states, as happened in May last year. It would be deeply irresponsible to allow such individuals to walk free while essential checks were still ongoing.
Amendment 140 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire, who I note is not present in his place, would require the Secretary of State to make a biannual report on the number of foreign criminals detained awaiting deportation under any authority broken down by nationality, and on the number of illegal entrants detained for any purpose under any authority broken down by nationality. This amendment would provide much-needed clarity on who was being detained and goes to the heart of a point that we on these Benches have raised consistently.
The British people have a right to know who is being detained and where they are from. If we are to foster good will towards those who genuinely need our help, this must be done in a framework of trust and openness between the Government and the public. For these reasons, while we welcome Amendment 140 for the clarity and transparency it brings, we cannot support the majority of the amendments in this group. They would weaken key provisions, create loopholes and make it harder for us to maintain the strength and integrity of our immigration and asylum system.
The challenge we face is significant and demands a robust response. No one will benefit in the long term if we fail to take control now. The British people will lose patience, trust will erode and good will towards migrants who genuinely need our help will diminish. Once that good will is lost, it cannot easily be recovered. We must bring the public with us, not alienate them, and that requires a system that is both strong and fair. These amendments do not achieve that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I find myself not in agreement, I am afraid, with the noble Lord, Lord German, so it is an interesting end to a long day of debate.
Immigration detention is an issue that I know noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of Clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. It is the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. Without the retrospective effect of this clause, individuals could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings.
Amendment 131 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove that retrospective effect. I do not believe that is a productive way forward because, as I mentioned, Clause 41 clarifies these powers. The Home Office already detains individuals at the first stage of deportation. Clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.
On Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, with support from other noble Lords, it is important to make clear the Government’s position that a statutory time limit on detention will not, in our view, be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK. The Government have been clear that we are committed to increasing removals of people who have no right to be here. That is what the public expect and, in that vein, I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
In the year ending March 2025, there were 8,600 enforced removals—a 22% increase on the previous year—and that would not be possible with a time limit on detention because it would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers. It is crucial that we have an immigration system that encourages compliance. Under a 28-day time limit, people who have no legal right to be in the UK—including, as the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, mentioned, some who potentially have committed serious crimes—would be automatically released after 28 days, regardless of whether they have actively obstructed removal efforts or pose a clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public, and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders, who may have committed serious criminal offences, would benefit from this amendment equally to anybody else.
Additionally, such a time limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate removal processes until they reach that 28-day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made that would potentially push people over the 28-day limit, and this would undermine effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk.
Amendment 133 requires that, after 96 hours of detention, a person may continue to be detained only if they have been refused bail by the First-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a scheduled bail hearing. This would again, in my view, place significant additional burdens on an already-stretched tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.
There are a number of safeguards in the detention process—I hope this will reassure the noble Lord—including access to the courts by judicial review; bail applications, which can be made at any point; and automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods. With these mechanisms in place, the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary.
I recognise and understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we have powers to detain people only for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose, either to examine a person on their arrival, to remove or to deport. We have a number of safeguards in place, and I assure noble Lords that, where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe, these safeguards ensure that people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I put that for him to consider today in order to withdraw the amendment, which we can return to later.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has tabled Amendment 140. Sadly, he has not managed to be here this evening, but when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day tomorrow morning, he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants. We also produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am obviously disappointed that the evidence produced by the inspectorate and many other bodies, including the House of Commons Justice Committee and our own committee on human rights, if not exactly thrown out of the window, has not necessarily received the full consideration we are speaking of. I hear what the Minister says, and I will reflect on that. I and the other supporters of this issue may well come back to it later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.