Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Subsection (3) states that the description can include

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

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

In conclusion—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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