Lords Chamber

Monday 2nd June 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Hart of Tenby and Baroness Prentis of Banbury
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling, do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Councillor, Victoria Mary Boswell Prentice, one of our council learning in the law, To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Prentis of Banbury, of Somerton in our county of Oxfordshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Prentis of Banbury,. To have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Forenoon of the 13th day of May, in the third year of our reign, by in the third year of our reign, by I do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bed true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting.

these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Councillor, Simon Anthony heart, to the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron heart of Tenby.

Of (No. 2) Bill free and our county of Pembrokeshire. And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron heart of Tenby. -- Baron heart of Tenby. To have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Afternoon of the 28th day of the Afternoon of the 28th day of May, in the third year of our reign.

By warrant under the King's manual. I, Simon, Lord Hart Tenby, do swear by a mighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Ratifying Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lord, My Lord, personable, My Lord, personable, a My Lord, personable, a question.
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Draft Protection of Children Codes published by Ofcom
-

Third Oral Question. Paper.
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

seal. I beg to move the first move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the first move looks back I will speak to the second motion at the same time but I will separately move and speak the will separately move and speak the third motion. In April 2024, the noble Lord Lord True as leader of the movement motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise increased cost of staying in London away from peers main homes. That scheme separate of £100 which noble Lord is based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel.

The scheme was welcomed across the House. And followed recommendations from and discussions with those that shared the main party groups and the convener. It was agreed that it should be reviewed, after a year of operation, and these changes proposed results from that review. The first change results, relates to the amount that can be claimed, the scheme was automatically operated in line with inflation so is now £103 per night. It's hard to pick exact amount but this figure isn't a realistic reflection of cost of hotels across the capital.

The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 per night. This will continue to be operated in line with inflation. As previously claimed, receipts must be provided. The existing scheme only covers hotel type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements, in London, to enable the attendance and House. Commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will be tied to attendance in the House where the robust system of verification.

For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, will be able to claim £63 per night, in Greater London, where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, laws must have stayed in the property the day before all the day after attending House. The finance to the required documentation to support the claim. These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. To ensure the original purpose, to assist members from outside London to be able to attend.

I beg to move.
15:35
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do thank the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal for making this Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put the House the reintroduction to put the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance, I was very grateful for her support on very grateful for her support on that. I'm happy to segregate the full support from this side, following the very careful following the very careful consideration we have had of these consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere under the guidance of the noble Baroness.

It's always difficult to strike a balance, and I difficult to strike a balance, and I think the commission in its decision on the recommendation of the on the recommendation of the proposals put forward has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. I may say talking of hard work, my noble friend here Earl Howe, completed last week 34 years on the frontbench in your Lordship's House.

If that's the definition of hard work, I don't know. I think that a lot of loose talk set outside this House about people in this House being lazy, people in this House lining their pockets. You don't become rich by becoming a member of the House of Lords. Many people here make great sacrifices. We shouldn't claim that we are poor or that we are under privileged. But it is right that House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard days work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion.

It's a duty on us to behave with honesty, and clarity, as I think we will do and will do, I have no doubt that these new proposals, and I support them and can I say in advance that I strongly support the motion that the noble Baroness, the further motion that she will move because that also relates to hard- working and valued members of the House. I again thank the noble Baroness and I commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.
15:38
15:38
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to noble Lords for supporting the motion for the House. I'm not quite sure when he says, when it is necessary to do so, what it refers to in my report. His point is about the verification and I will address at first. It must be a very robust process about verification. So they will require a copy of the council tax statement and for those many of those who have a second place in London where they say, it will say second home on it.

It specifies, it is not their main home on the council taxed statement. There will also be a record of people travel is patterned back and forward to the House so it's quite clear if someone is travelling from another part of the country to stay in London for a few days to ensure they can carry out the duties in this house, that will be another point of verification. He is right to raise the point but this is why the commission took a long time to look at this to give consideration to ensure we were confident on that point.

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord True and indeed I spoke to him when he first raised the issue last year. The is a balance of responsibilities both to the taxpayer and members of this House. We would be the poorer if the only people that can tend your Lordship's House... Those that either lived in London or had private financings to enable them to stay in London. This is less than other places, it's a contribution towards it, which members will use their daily allowance to pay the rest of it.

I hope members, and I appreciate the support from noble Lords that this is a way forward, so we are not only representing those who live in London.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are used as illustration my own situation which I know is far from situation which I know is far from unique. I rent the use of a room in the apartment in London and an the apartment in London and an annual basis. As I read the motion and the details in the financial and the details in the financial support document, I will not be able to claim any reimbursement from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to claim any reimbursement from the rent I pay for the use of that room. Is that so? It depends on the circumstances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It depends on the circumstances. It is where somebody is paying responsivity for paying more than just the rent for a single room. I don't know if he's in the council tax bill or other costs. It is not tax bill or other costs. It is not for those who stay in rooms with family and friends, is the hotel bills and it's those whose names on bills and it's those whose names on the council tax form to show they are staying there. We will have to discuss it with the finance team but it may be that he is not covered by renting a room in a friends house.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Resolution in the London accommodation costs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allowance, Lord Privy Seal. I have spoken to this, I beg to move. The question is that the second motion be agreed to. As many are of motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Resolution in a supplementary daily allowance, Lord Privy Seal. I beg to move the third motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the third motion standing in my name and the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission in the House of Lords Commission in the usual channels are set out in the commission report on 29th April this year. It's intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside the meeting.

It works by enabling those chairs to claim a maximum of three extra days a month, on top of those they can claim through attending the house, or committee meeting. But that will ensure that for any month total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

days of the House. I beg to move. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
15:43
15:44
15:44
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its Amendment 49, SD, to which the Commons have 49, SD, to which the Commons have disagreed for the recent 49, E. I want to start today's debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun recess, the elected house once again overturned the noble Lady could room's Amendment to the bill. -- Lady Kidron's the bill.

-- Lady Kidron's Amendment. For those who have not read this in Hansard IAG to do so because it was well received. A single remaining issue, AI and copyright, is one I know many noble Lords care deeply about and with good reason. It's imperative that we become the country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world leading creative industries. The country whose economically economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and very importantly fair.

As I have said before we must get this right. To ensure we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about the way the consultation and the bill collided. And how by indicating the preferred option it appeared to some that the government had prematurely taken a side in this debate. It also want to make sure noble Lords had complete clarity in our approach and how this has always been separate from the Data Bill which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law.

By Richard government has an open mind about the outcome. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it stop money of whom have interesting ideas It is completely understandable that Lords have sought to use this bill to set a direction of travel. Motor might use this bill in the direction they have. I hope to write confident that despite continuing to resist the amendment, we truly want to solve these issues and we have a plan to do so.

Outside of the legislative process, the government has been and will continue to do its post to analyse and resolve the issues. We are studiously considering the thousands of responses to the consultation. The Secretary of State is setting up expert working groups to bring people together from both technology and creative sectors to help chart the way forward in a full range of areas with a particular emphasis on transparency and technical standards. We are committed to listening, genuinely listening to a broad range of views.

The noble Lady's assertion that the government only ever listens to big tech is as unfair as it is unfounded. The Secretary of State has met representatives of creative industries as well as members of both houses to hear from them. We will of course make sure noble Lord is are informed about the progress and outcomes of the working groups at every stage possible. Not least as I am sure that there will be many questions tabled on this by noble Lord in this House and I look forward to answering them.

As noble Lord no, we have committed on the face of the bill to report on economic impacts and the use of copyright in the development of AI systems within 12 months of Royal assent. This will be an important stage in the process as we move forward with the consultation process and subsequent regulatory change. Today, I would like to give some further reassurances on the government's trajectory and commitments to both speed and parliamentary accountability. Firstly, I can confirm that the government's report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Lady's original amendment.

How to deal with models trained overseas and how rules should be enforced and by who. The first issue has been raised in this House including by my noble friend under. The latter is an issue that has evoked Financial Privilege another place but where it is right that the government puts forward its view. Secondly, to reflect our shared view that these are issues that need to be resolved quickly, we will publish an economic impact assessment and the report required by this bill within nine months of Royal assent rather than 12.

This will ensure we are ready to act as soon as possible whilst also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. And thirdly, if we are not in a position to publish final documents within six months of the bill's Royal assent and the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament a report setting out the progress towards being made towards their publication. I hope this gives noble Lord the assurances they need that our work will not be done behind closed doors.

We want to make progress and we want to do this in a manner that involves Parliament and relevant stakeholders. As a final word, I know this debate has been heated at times. The wider world looks to us in this place to debate with courtesy, to disagree agreeably as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in response to the last summer's king speech. So I asked noble Lord to consider their words today, to avoid the language of betrayal and conflict, and to try and find a measured and civil turn through which we can all trace our path forward.

Finding the right way forward means dealing with the issues together and coming up with workable considered solutions. It isn't nobody's interest, if we rushed to the wrong conclusion or ineffective regulation. Time and time again, in previous sessions, promises were made and legislation rushed through, only for us to have to go through the entire process again when it was found to be inadequate. We said that we would legislate better and we are determined to do so. That means consulting properly, following the additional deliberative process I have set out, and then ringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament and both sides of the argument can have confidence in.

I urge noble Lord's on all sides of this House, let us get on with sorting this issue out, rather than creating yet another stand-off with the House of Commons and delaying the processes we have put on the face of the bill. The creative and technology industries want certain, not constitutional crises. I hope my remarks today give noble Lord's confidence in the government approach which has put accountability at its heart and will allow us to put this important bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to bed. I beg to move. The question is that motion a be
15:52
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. Motion A1. I beg to have that we insert to proposed amendment for F in view of amendment. Most overlords have made their minds up about the substance, but I do think it is important to say why we are here again. There is say why we are here again. There is no argument about the fact that no argument about the fact that copyright material is being stolen. The Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box in the other place has already said much content has already said much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models.

There is no longer an argument about whether copyright law argument about whether copyright law is uncertain. All three Ministers have now declared UK copyright law have now declared UK copyright law is untouched by the data bill and any previous suggestions it was uncertain now discredited. Ministers uncertain now discredited. Ministers do however, continue to say this is the wrong bill, yet the press release heralded the bill as unlocking the power of data to grow the economy. The prevention of mass theft and the inevitable resulting growth of a licensing market would indeed grow the economy.

Meanwhile, the public bill office and the clerks and the other place have no problem. Indeed, thanks to his Lordships House, transparency has been in the bill three times. There is only one problem. A problem of political will. The first iteration of a copyright amendment in my name was during the passage at the digital markets competition and consumers bill when Labour were still in opposition. At the time, the noble Lady who is now Minister said that she hoped that Bill would deliver the long overdue copyright protection we all seek.

18 months ago, there were no concerns on the Labour benches about enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they recognise the issue warranted immediate intervention. Since that time, a comprehensive transparency regime that included enforcement was put forward by your Lordships but the government voted to take it out saying it was too comprehensive. The next amendment followed the government's own timeline and scope but made provision for regulation. The government voted that out, too. Saying it was too soon.

Too soon to uphold the law, too soon to stop stealing acknowledged by all. Noble Lord's, artists, musicians, the site is, writers, and even the UK indigenous AI community who we have worked with, side-by-side throughout, are baffled as to why the government is deliberately standing in the way of UK citizens and companies who are trying to control and protect their own property. Some are suggesting that government Civil Service Number Ten are all wage earners. They simply do not understand that the 126 billion creative industry is largely made up of freelancers whose income, sickness benefit, pension, maternity and holiday pay are not contractual.

But are provided by royalties. But are provided by royalties. Royalties dependent on copyright. Something that the government are too proud to admit the mistakes of their ill-fated consultation, widely condemned as too little too late, proposals within it considered partisan. So much so that even Ministers have had to backtrack. It has no timeline and indeed, a successful campaign by others has overwhelmed the process. The vast majority of the 11,500 submissions are from creative companies and individuals whose work is being stolen right now.

And to need the transparency to create A-level playing field. And yet, rather than respond to their urgent cry, the secretary of skip -- state as he stood at the Dispatch Box and the other place, defending the government's decision to overthrow the Lords transparency amendment said, I quote, it would not be fair to one sector to privilege another. It is extraordinary that the government's decided immovable and strongly held position is that enforcing the law to prevent the theft of UK citizens property is unfair to the sector doing the stealing.

In what other industrial context does being fair require a national government to support thieves to continue their plunder while simultaneously removing tools that protect from the victim. Being balanced and fair sounds reasonable but it is neither fair nor balanced nor indeed, reasonable, to standby while one sector steals from while one sector steals from another. In full site. The amendment passed by his Lordships House on 19 May did not demand the government take a side. It simply provided
15:58
None Portrait Amendment: A1 Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-

transparency so the creative industry could protect themselves. industry could protect themselves. The government has an two-day will again, vote to make indigenous AI again, vote to make indigenous AI and creative industries defenceless. and creative industries defenceless. Before recess I hosted a five hour long meeting at which creatives were joined by many AI companies and experts to discuss technical issues around transparency. There were a myriad of technical solutions but myriad of technical solutions but all agreed that it was changing the incentives that was urgent and that incentives that was urgent and that the tech would follow.

AI is the technology has now and the future, technology has now and the future, it requires data, sometimes very high quality data, sometimes both. It is built on data, data is a valuable component of AI and as I said to the House last time we debated this bill, some of that data is the most valuable property in British hands. It can be made available under licence and indeed, it already is. It is often licensed. But more often still, it is being taken without remission and without payment.

And this government in all of its actions is not only giving permission to steal, it is determinedly standing in the way of UK property owners identifying the UK property owners identifying the thief. It is the relative ring to me -- will drink to me that Ministers looking back on the tech sector model believe we should damage or give away our second-biggest industrial sector and the promise that we will be overwhelmed by benefits in the future. They are sacrificing both the UK creative industries and the UK AI and digital industries by leaving our valuable content and data freely open to big tech companies.

These incumbents will destroy a sector that amounts to 5% of the UK economy just as they previously torpedoed the commercial viability of UK media. It will prevent UK start-ups from growing by allowing big tech to some of the market, too. The government is being extraordinarily cavalier about opening our markets with no friction to big tech companies. Giving away the future of two sectors so central to its industrial strategy and undermining its own top priority of economic growth.

The creative industries account for 7% of UK jobs which are located around the whole country. 70% of which are outside The Data Bill was not hijacked by creative to get in the way of growth plans. We have made grown-up interventions to rescue NII policy written by a serial tech investor with the conflict of interest. A tech investor who has access to the Cabinet and has failed to make the case or other people's property or indeed property paid for by the UK taxpayer should be given away to some of the most capitalised businesses in history.

But it is based on this policy the government had deliberately rejected the Lord's world to uphold property rights and is based on this policy that they have chosen to stand in the way of allowing creative workers and companies to protect their own assets and future income for themselves. Both sector representatives and I have gone out of our way to urge government to bring something forward that represents a safety net for creative industries and in turn a safety net for the government and the country.

A simple amendment that would allow a rights holder 75 who, what, when and why creative copyright was taken. Ministers are briefing that that is not possible. But I'm afraid that is not true. It is something that has been done in response to amendments I have laid several times before in his Lordship's House. Not only impossible but essential for the health of the sector and essential that the UK is to play a significant part in the AI economy, not simply be a footnote in its history.

The amendment in front of us is worth having but make no mistake. Previous amendments rejected on procedural grounds were better. This amendment simply makes sure that reports brought forward by this bill, the scale of theft of copyright material, identified regulated gaps and that that information is brought to Parliament. It also requires a draft bills to address any regulatory gaps. The first part of the amendment is only there to ensure the government is transparent about the needs of the draft Bill, it is not a compromise, not even a sticking plaster.

It is essential that we have a draft bills. My Lords, it is in the gift of government to bring forward something better but there is no value in accepting anything worse because it is already the bare minimum. And yet, I was told by ministers last week that it is intention, it is the intention to vote this down also. And that is a clear message to the 2.4 million voters, to the people who inform and entertain us this government will resolutely define the interests of Logitech companies, rather than make provision for a UK sector that means so much to our well-being, economy and identity.

Milos, a not have to be this way. The better way. And the government has used procedure and not argument, and I wish that they had the humility and strength to change course, and make a meaningful effort to build an AI future that every UK citizen can have a stake in. My inbox is bursting with thanks from individual creators, large corporate, and organisations that represent hundreds of thousands of people thanking colleagues from all sides of this House for standing with them, for voting with them, and sometimes even standing, sitting on their hands.

But my Lords, I know ping-pong is again that many Lord's do not wish to play and I do respect that. But it is the government who are actively failing to protect the property rights of our citizens and visitors. It is the government who are actively failing to give UK citizens the tool to protect the property rights and it is the government who have failed to answer the concerns of noble Lords, who have time and again asked them to reconsider. And I do hope that enough noble Lords will continue to come with me until the government think again.

Because there are 2.4 million people, 126 million contribution to the economy. Our very precious press and our national
16:06
16:06
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I propose to be brief because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I propose to be brief because Baroness Kidron in a formidable speech has spent all the issues. But speech has spent all the issues. But I would like to make a couple of points, the first is, I don't like protracted ping-pong. I think it's constitutionally not great. And as the Minister in the other place, when it happened, I was none too pleased. But the difference between then and now is that when your lordship said something to the other place, it was first of all established the government would not comment on it until it had considered it properly.

Secondly that you would have discussions with whoever had made the amendment and that she would try to find an accommodation, in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got onto the statute book. And on many occasions when I was irritated, I came to be realise that what the House of Lords was saying was actually right and that an House of Lords there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about and Baroness Kidron is one of those people.

I think on this occasion it is perfectly apparent that Responses has been to stick their fingers in their ears and to basically continue to say the same thing. Notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister's introductory remarks. Have to say when a minister starts complaining about the Derren debate, they have lost the argument. It seems as a Conservative this is an absolutely vital thing because as a Conservative I believe that the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a freeze of -- free society.

In respect of the last debate we had was a huge majority in the House asking the government to think again. I have not always been a Conservative, when I went to university I thought I was a socialist. One of the things that I believed then, what I still believe now, is that people have a right to a days pay for a days work. That people have the right to be able to own the property and that they have a right to sell the reasonable manner.

And the government is running headstrong against that basic principle which I would have thought can be accepted on all sides of the House. What are we dealing with? Something we are brilliant at? I don't know if you have seen the Channel 4 programme the piano, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. It is amazing, the talent there is in this country, that we do not know. Unbelievable talent. People who can compose and play the piano to a level which is just extraordinary.

No speed will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech. I'm going to say something which will upset the Minister and she will say that I've been unfair to the government. It looks to me like crony capitalism and the government have gone into bed together. And they are saying to the government, just give away this. And we will give you data centres, quite how the legend Steve is going to come, Macalester.

Just give us this. And leaders in the world, only a very naive minister would believe that kind of nonsense and where does it end? I say to the government, what makes the government think that the other place, or the government, have the authority to give away people's property and rights to and living? Because that is the issue which is being raised here today. So which is being raised here today. So I say to the noble Baroness, although I do not like extended ping-pong, the House of Lords is doing its duty in speak up for the rights of the country, I hope her amendment will be carried by good majority and that the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will think again. ... I agree that every word that
16:11
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

... I agree that every word that Lord Forsyth, but this problem more Lord Forsyth, but this problem more worrying for him. Now is not the time for long speeches, but commandments. I will support this amendment 's cap and congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Kidron on so brilliantly moving the amendment. I refer of course to the register of interest and as a rights holder. I will say to the government minister for whom I have the greatest respect, as a rights holder and a royalties holder, reassurances do not sadly pay the rent, but royalties do.

When it comes to technology, creatives have embraced every single challenge of developing technology, through to cable and satellite television, television on demand, streaming, Spotify and so on. We have always proceeded on the basis that the user must pay. And now is not the time to deflect from that principle and now is not too late for the government to embrace that principle. It is incomprehensible for me to believe that jobbing actors, singers, writers and other creatives, people at the beginning or the end of their professions, will be able to police the Internet in such a way as to find those using their material and then they can opt in or opt out.

That is not part of the reality of people in the creative professions. It is to those most in need of the protection of copyright that I speak, and it's those who will lose the most. It is for them I urge your lordship's to support the amendment which is reasonable and which I believe any reasonable Secretary of State should welcome and indeed embraced. Finally, for the record, much has been said about Minister Peter Kyle. He is a good, decent, fair and highly intelligent person and a friend of any years.

I say to him, and to the government, that the art of compromise is to give a little in order that we all win a lot. And on not talking about the dog food. Therefore I think it is in the government's domain to move forward, to compromise, to accept the amendment as to quote the minister, a workable solution. Because it makes sense.
16:13
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for her opening statement. But I rise to support the noble Baroness Kidron once again. In her mission to protect the future of our creative industries, to protect their rights and intellectual. My Lords, technological progress does not always make things better for humanity. And it often comes with hidden long-term consequences, that's why the government has to be wise, to put measures in place to protect us before it's too late.

So many people have contacted me to express their anger that the government is selling them down the river and I feel it's my duty once again to voice their concerns. These include those in the publishing world where many publishers are deeply worried that the content has already been stolen and there is no provision in current copyright law to stop this happening. They are anxious, and if companies are allowed to freely steal content, it will destroy the publishing world as we know it and take away their long-term livelihood.

And that's not just the publishing world but across our world-class, highly respected and admired creative industries, film, TV, music, photography, arts, performance, the list is endless. This act is a sector that brings in millions, billions, and billions to the economy. That is why it is essential that even as we embrace the benefits of AI, we must also enforce the long-standing UK copyright law, first established at the beginning of the 18th-century the beginning of the 18th-century theft is being compared to the Wild We need the government to make some sort of compromise.

Not just talking to big tech companies but by listening, listening to the strength of concerns and worries, not only from across this House, but from the thousands and thousands and thousands of creators established ones, as well as those up and coming, across the country. At this critical point in time, any compromise may not be perfect, but it will lay down a marker, a show of intent that this government truly cares for the creative industries future and their fight for survival.

20 years ago, I suggested that the Internet should be regulated and I was condescendingly told, it could never happen. Today, Ofcom is beginning to regulate the Internet but so much irreversible damage has been done during that time. I see us being in a similar position now with AI running rampant without control, with the government resisting calls to legislate to protect the creative industries from AI. Does the government really want to have this on their conscience? The government needs to create a framework that is fair and transparent, where innovation can coexist with AI.

Not sometime in the future, but right now. We need assurances, we must not sell ourselves short. I urge the government to accept the amendment to introduce transparency with regulations in place to give creators peace of mind. For their future, innovation and creation and livelihood. And especially for the sake of our children and young people's future. I declare an interest. interest.
16:18
Lord Baker of Dorking Portrait Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
-
-
This is the first time I have spoken on this measure because I'd assume that after the bill had gone to the House of Commons they would accept the arguments from this place in the previous debates. And they would realise that this is not only a wrong bill but a very harmful built to the creative talent in our countries. And what I found particularly strange about it, is that it is totally alien to the attitude taken by the Labour Party since 1,900.

In 1,900, the trade union and the early people were totally in favour of supporting British culture and no one more strongly, because one of my grandfathers was the secretary of daytrading and got the post because he was one of the few dock workers who could read and write and he became a friend of Keir Hardie who often said -- stayed when he came to Newport. He persuaded him to realise that as the working classes ready to be improved and they would aim to enjoy the culture of Britain, they first had to read and be able to read that was one of the main features of the Labour Party since 1,900.

They have been prominent in that they take great pride on it. And in 1936 when the first Penguin was published, a book and paper pack which cost a sixpence, that was a revolution and it was recognised because the cost of a hardbound book with a dustjacket would be one pound and how could a working man in 1936, where the average age -- wagerer labourer was five pounds a week could affordable, and he realised that was a revolution and he spoke out in favour of it and when he became Prime Minister after the war, the Arts Council was set up and the first Labour government from 1964 to 1970, there was the first Minister for the arts and not only that, she travelled the amount of money that the Arts Council had and she did much to prevent -- to help the National Theatre.

Labour has always in its history supported culture and British culture and creative people. This is directly against the tradition of labour. And they should realise that. Those getting up and supporting the government, they don't exist as far as I can see. Does anyone want to get up now to support the government and the Labour backbenchers? Does anybody want to do it? I would only say this, the Minister did not really talk about the damage that can be done to the creative talents of our country, but if she could perhaps look at the times supplement last week where there were eight articles by British authors, all of whom were very worried by this, who feared that having their particular characteristics taken away and stolen from nothing and they would not be able to earn a living.

All of those writers, one of them was a woman who was a brilliant writer of children's fantasy books and she worried about that. And another great writer has attacked this bill including Salman Rushdie, the most read English writer in the world. Where are the supporters for it? I believe that the Minister should stop listening to the large tech companies in America. Many of whom have only existed for four years, and listen to the experts in our country, celebrating a culture which extends 1,000 years.

That is what we should be proud and we should realise that this is a wrong bill, a disgraceful bill and I don't think a wrong and disgraceful bill should lie on our statute books.
16:22
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
I have an aversion to ping-pong, having spent 23 has an House of Commons and also having been a government Minister and also experienced it when it went overnight and people had to sleep in offices and it became more palm than paying very often after that. There is a lot of justification for your Lordships House in insisting on the government taking another look and coming forward with its own compromise which many noble colleagues have called for and I very much welcome the tone that was taken by the Secretary of State who took to the Dispatch Box himself in order to talk about errors that have been made in the consultation.

And I disagree with the noble Lord that this is a terrible bill, it is not terrible, but it has a massively Kuna in it when it comes to the issue of artificial intelligence and its impact on creators and livelihoods and it is a matter of their livelihoods, it is a matter of people paying their rent. I welcome the tone and the comments made by my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks, and I welcome what she said about enforcement and economic impact assessments and committing to bring forward a report within six months rather than nine months.

There was a welcome additional commitments that we haven't necessarily heard before. Where I did disagree with her was that she felt that not adding these amendments to the bill something similar would give greater certainty. She said creative industries in the tech industry is one certainty. In my view, certainty is what would be provided if we were to accept today's or indeed the previous amendment put forward, because they give greater certainty to everyone that copyright will be enforced in this country and that the means to enforce it will be available through greater transparency.

Last Thursday, some of us in this place and I refer to my declaration and also as a member of the Academy, I went to the Ivor Novello awards that celebrate the great songwriters and musicians of great songwriters and musicians of this country. And he was born in my constituency of Cardiff West and there is a plaque on the screen round the corner from my House indicating where he was born. And it is a reminder, the Ivor Novello awards that we are world leaders in creativity as other noble Lord's have said, and that we are exporters of that creativity.

This is not foreign currency for, we should not get into bed with anyone who seeks to undermine that. And so, I say in relation to this amendment, it is a moderate amendment being put forward by the noble Baroness, it is modest, some might say too modest an amendment in relation to what could be put forward if the government were to come forward with its own statement, but in my view that is exactly what the government should do and it should make out its case rather than invoking Financial Privilege on every occasion although it is the Commons right to do that.

In my view, the argument should be laid, if this is the wrong pathway, why is it the wrong pathway? In my view, transparency is what is needed and it is needed now. and it is needed now.
16:26
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
I declare my interest as an artist member. The United States have a battle under way at only about meeting with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. 31 US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation, it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce as federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely opposing a decade-long oratorio. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility.

Yet the states persist, introducing 550 new bills alone this year. We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China's intellectual property theft. The foundation of their economic rise. Now we permit circumflex valley -- silicon valley the same. It is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone, no new law, no regulator burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves its consultation. It demands only visibility.

This is a test that, whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI, by giving creators the simple right to see who was taking their work. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore urge that the House support this amendment. Is a member of the Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a member of the Labour benches, could I say that I actually support the government's position on support the government's position on this occasion. And the reason is this occasion. And the reason is this, that I think the Baroness has this, that I think the Baroness has with great force of personality made with great force of personality made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property. And I think she has won battle. I think it would be possible
16:28
Lord Liddle Portrait Lord Liddle (Labour)
-
-
battle. I think it would be possible in future fall, in the coming year also, for a government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns. I am a massive supporter of the creative industries. I think they make an enormous, not just an economic contribution to the country which is very great and growing, and it is part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are, but I also think their presence, and this is something my friend has often said, they offer the opportunity to fulfil themselves or for people to fulfil themselves and people of all social classes, to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible.

I am very sympathetic, but I do not think that this is the right vehicle through a simple amendment to try and put in place a whole new copyright law. And what I did do... I don't quite see how passing this amendment is going to solve the problem. I took the trouble to look at what the Secretary of State had said in the House of Commons, and I think if members of this House had read what he had said, they would take a more For instance, he made an apology, which is very unusual for ministers.

He said I regret the timing of the copyright consultation on AI, the consideration of this bill and the way that the two collided. I regret that by indicating a preferred option, it appeared to some that I had taken the side in the debate before everyone felt they had been listened to. So he has admitted that we got some of this wrong. Secondly, he is very anxious to find a compromise way forward that protects the creative in.

the creative in.
16:32
16:33
16:35
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
There are two members of your Lordships House who was sitting in the House of Commons last week listening to the debate. The noble Lady Lady Kidron and myself. During Lady Lady Kidron and myself. During that brief debate there were no less than 13 interventions to the Secretary of State from around the House, nine of which were from Labour's own backbenches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees. Not a single person said you have got it right, we accept all these apologies, we are going in the right direction.

It is very clear if you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice President of the United States at the AI Summit in Paris in February, it is clear what the White House and the Trump administration intends to do. It is America first, second and third and America first, second and third and so on. Companies like Google, there position is crystal clear. They are against transparency. They are basically saying all the information we have already taken, it is too late and we have the ability to use it and we need and want more.

But the back drop to that, as the noble Lord said, there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago the US office of copyright, if you like the guardian of copyright in US law issued a report and that report directly challenges any of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to try and make sure that the White House can override them.

They intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up in what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality. interest. That is the reality.
16:38
16:38
Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I just wanted to briefly make a short intervention. briefly make a short intervention. Not least because Dundee has intervened, and not because we share a birthday, it's the first time that two lords with the same birthday have made a point, we just need Lord Rooker who also has the same Don't think that if this bill isn't passed that our lead in the world in passed that our lead in the world in AI will not grind to a halt.

Regulation we do well in this country, I know that sounds well like heresy. It may sound like heresy to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but as a true conservative I am entitled to say that regulation is a good thing. We can pass this amendment and bring in proper regulation with a good regulator and that is an important point. I also wanted to admonish my own side, the side devoted to Baroness Kidron and everything she is doing with the reference to big tech.

I do except that Big Tech has a seat at the table, but in my own experience as a minister I know that one has to navigate a difficult course between the different competing interests when they clash, creative in big tech and so on. I do say this with great care. I do not think it is right to undermine motives of people who are working very closely with this government to achieve the right solution. I think I'm note to whom Baroness Kidron was referring to as the investor that advises the government.

As far as I am concerned he has devoted a great deal of time not just in this government but to the previous government wanted to do what is right, which is to keep written at the forefront of AI innovation. I simply wanted to put that comment on the record.
16:39
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
There are one or two things that have arisen today which I do wish to address. We were told by the Minister that the government's view is that we might be in danger of privileging one section of the creative in as against another. One section of the community that is likely to be affected by AI stop but what I want to say is copyright underlines everything. It is universal. If you are talking about a film, television, a work of literature, copyright is the essential ingredient.

Now, when it comes to the issue of going in small parts, one thing leading to another, I do want to mention something that happened a few years ago, which we are still trying to deal with. Before Brexit, I and others made the point to the government that this was going to seriously cause a problem for touring decisions and artist and the government said, Boris Johnson is government said, we conceive that. We are not going to let it happen.

Well, my Lords, we have been trying to sort it out ever since, so my point is simply this. Getting small issues right is incredibly important because further down the line, they become massive, and that is why anything noble Lady Baroness Kidron is right to keep pushing. I am amongst many noble Lord here are very concerned about ping-pong, especially when we see it frustrating the mandated chamber, but as Lord Judge once said to me, there are sometimes issues where you just have two stand firm for as long as possible.

I believe this is one of them.
16:41
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that I am not able to repeat comments that I have previously made, but I have followed very closely the debates on this and followed with great admiration the campaign led by the noble Baroness Lady Kidron. Not just in this chamber but far beyond it. This has never been a question of party politics. It has been striking that the initiative here has been led from the crossbenches and back ventures in both houses, as Lord Russell has just pointed out.

But Lady Kidron has led the charge, put her case clearly, she has been reasonable and patient in the face of answers that are even more frustrating than the ones I used to give her when I was at the Dispatch Box. She has been proactive and after winning the last round of ping-pong, she was up early to welcome representatives from the creative industry and the AI sector. The government keeps making this sound as if it is a binary choice between two competing sectors.

It is not, as Lord Vaizey has just reminded us. Responsible innovators from the AI sector know how vital design and creativity are two or design and creativity are two or Are important to our industry. Taylor Swift bought back the rights to her first six albums four and nine figure sum. It would be an irony if her work was stolen and fed into a large language model with no transparency. The creative industry transparency.

The creative industry has spoken with one voice as it is existential to them. That is why it has been disappointing that the government has not responded to the noble Baroness and the many noble Lord who have joined her in the previous rounds of ping-pong expressing their concerns about this issue. They have not engaged on the point of substance behind her amendments, but relied on arguments of process. There is nothing in the noble Baroness's amendment, her third attempt to offer a solution to the government which engages the financial privilege of another place.

I hope we will hear more from the noble Baroness the Minister on the substance of the argument and the new amendment rather than an attempt to run down the clock, or hide behind process. I hope we might yet at this late stage get a glimmer of the compromise that the noble Lords and others have hoped for. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships House respects the will of the elected one, but it would not be a constitutional crisis, as the noble Baroness the Minister put it.

The convention relies on the government engaging faithfully, not just relying on points of process, but on points of substance. At a time when the government is seeking to weaken the scrutiny functions of your Lordships House by removing almost 90 members, all but three of them from their benches, it needs to treat your Lordships House with a bit more respect if it wants those conventions to be adhered to. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Lady Baroness Kidron. Lady Baroness Kidron.

Lady Baroness Kidron.
16:45
16:46
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
I intend to make my own speech. I want to thank the noble Baroness for helping stand-up for my interests, my professional interests, those of my family, and 2.4 million other people, from their created efforts. You are doing us a great service and I'm grateful. Of course, there is an issue of rights. Constitutional rights, how long we go with the ping-pong, I said before, the government has the right... The elected government has the right to get the business through.

But those rights also have responsibilities. Those responsibilities, above all, are to listen to this House when it expresses a view, so consistently, so coherently and over so many occasions. I have to say, I do not believe the government has given the appearance of listening to any of what has gone on here. It is not that difficult, husbands around the country give the appearance of listening. Even in the middle of watching football. But the government has not even done...

The basic business of saying, yes, I understand and Willison. The last time we discussed this, I thought it was unfortunate, if not unfair, for the government to imply that the noble Baroness had turned down meetings with ministers. That was unnecessary. It should not have been said, that has got nothing to do with the importance of her remarks. And I also find that it is deeply unhelpful when we, in this House, find ourselves having to come back, time and time again, simply to ask the government to listen, offer coherent responses and not simply dismiss what has been said here, otherwise what is this chamber for? If, after debates like we have had, if the government gives nothing.

It does not listen to this has come it does not listen to Elton John, Paul McCartney, or any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the industry, to say, just do something... A little bit, to show that you have understood. I have been accused in the past of having a bit of a vivid imagination. I wonder, why is this government so blatantly stubborn. I wonder what went on in Washington when we were doing the deal, the trade deal, whether any conversations going on behind the scenes, giving guarantees or commitments or understandings about what approach this government would take towards copyright and AI.

We know that Elon Musk, a powerful man in the White House, wanted the government position... Not the position of Baroness Kidron. This side of the House has been accused by government members, over the last few days, of being on the side of... Making arguments as were made in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. That was shameful, it has got nothing to do with this particular issue, although it did make we think, are we actually looking here at Digital Munich, bending the knee to a power wanted to do a deal with, with backdoor agreements, and I would ask the noble Minister, will she please give us an absolute guarantee that no such behind-the-scenes unannounced undertakings have been given? I fail to understand why this government is being so stubborn.

In light of the fact that the government has the right to get the business through, but it also has responsibilities, as we have responsibilities to stand up for what we believe to be entirely obviously correct, I will attend, if the bonus pushes the issue, I will intend gladly to march into the routing office with her on this issue. issue.
16:50
16:51
16:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare an interest as chair of the authors licensing collecting society and I rise to offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat benches, in the name of Baroness Kidron, which introduces amendment 40 9F -- 49F, it is clear that the noble Baroness's's teachers make speeches become better and better the more we come on. The arguments made today for these amendments become better and better and more convincing as time goes on.

I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord said. We all, time and time again, have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper, repeated by ministers, suggesting that there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing copyright law. We have had the Secretary of State just recently acknowledged that existing copyright law is not very certain. But, as I said, he also stated it is not fit for purpose. That makes the narrative even worse than seeing copyright law is uncertain.

Baroness Kidron has asserted, we do not need to change copyright law, it is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not efficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also put it. I have a number of speeches to draw on. What we cannot see, you cannot enforce. The corporate is a lack of transparency from AI developers, without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, created and right holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate legal action.

The government, in striking down previous Lords Amendments, has suggested that this House is at fault for using the wrong bill, they have repeatedly claimed it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing. They have also asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise the sector over another. That is exactly what this government is doing. They suggested an expert working group, a report... Economic impact assessment committee report on the use of copyright, and a report on progress. In what the noble Baroness, the Minister had to say.

Men -- none of that gives us legislative insurance and certainty needed, in the words of Lord Brennan, that we need in the circumstances. The government has objected to being asked to introduce regulations, because of Financial Privilege. And now they are objecting, it seems, because I can anticipate what the noble Baroness is going to see, they are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill. With this amendment. The government is at liberty to bring forward its own amendment, allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported.

Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning, licensing market. It promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industry and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contribute value to AI models. My Lords, the government has asked for a degree of trust for its plans, this amendment, while less and creators deserve, and I think the noble Baroness described it as the bare minimum, is a step that would take the strike help and trust.

-- Eight step that would help to earn trust. I urge the government to heed the words of their backbenchers, Lord Cashman, Lord Brooke, Lord Brennan, the all ask the government to find a compromise. I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the government, to support motion A.
16:57
16:59
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I must thank all the noble Lord who have spoken during this debate and, of course, I continue to reckon rise the passion and depth of feeling on this issue. I did not think I needed to reiterate this, but we absolutely believe in the importance of the creative sector and of course we want it to have a flourishing future. In previous debates, I have spelt out all of the work that we are doing with the creative sector, how fundamental it is to the economic panel, I do not intend to go over that but I said it time and time again.

Our intention is to find a substantial solution to this challenge that we are all facing. And I also want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others, that we have had numerous discussions with Baroness Kidron and others and indeed have taken this discussion seriously. As a result of that, we come today with an honest and committed plan to work together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright, both quickly and AI and copyright, both quickly and On the issue of copyright theft, I have two say, to say that the government is legalising or enabling Let me be categorical.

No changes have been made to copyright law, it is still enforceable. There are cases right now before the courts. No changes will be made until we have gone through the process that we have set out and that will be transparent. It will be informed and subject to scrutiny in both houses. I am full to Lord Liddle for saying we should read the Secretary of State speech, which I said in my opening remarks. It was a balanced and thoughtful contribution to the debate and I think it has been misrepresented by some people here.

I also don't believe that the Secretary of State said in that debate it would be fair to privilege one sector over another. The views of the government are the opposite. He did say putting the interests of one sector above those of another would be the wrong approach. I also resent the suggestion that the government are beholden to the big tech companies. The Secretary of State and all ministers in the Department are in regular dialogue with tech companies, of course we are. This is our job.

I have regular meetings with tech companies on online safety and my colleagues, including my noble friend the Minister Lord Bryant have dialogue with the creative sector. And we also have a small and thriving UK tech sector, many of whom are working in collaboration with the creative sector. So this is not one side against the other, it is trying to find a solution which will impact and enable all those groups to thrive and that is what we are attempting to do.

So, yes, people say we have not compromise, but we have compromised and we are trying to find a way through. The Secretary of State has said we will convene the technical working groups and use those to work through the details in a way that supports the creative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into and the tech sector. I am most grateful to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am most grateful to the noble Lady. Because she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord Lord Rooker and others. While the government has been working and the government has been working and looking for a compromise, why have they sent this back to the House?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they sent this back to the House? We have made compromises. We are trying to find a way through about the detail that we will find something that is workable and deliverable in the long term. That is a real challenge. We all agree we is a real challenge. We all agree we need something that will support the creative sector. It is finding a creative sector. It is finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge and that is what we are attempting to do, but I think noble Lords think it is simpler than it is.

It's a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not think there is a simple solution. I do not for one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second think there is. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she Baroness for giving way. Will she also except though that in order for these discussions to be fruitful in terms of the workshops and roundtables the government has roundtables the government has proposed, all parties need to know they are entering into those discussions on an equal footing. Although the noble Baroness and the Although the noble Baroness and the secretary of state have made quite a lot of play about not wanting to favour one side or another, through the consultation process and to the the consultation process and to the way in which the government has demonstrated a favouritism to one demonstrated a favouritism to one side of that discussion, there is a lack of confidence amongst the creative sector in terms of them entering into these negotiations.

That is what is lacking and that is what is needed to get those discussions the point where they can be constructive and deliver the solution which I agree with her will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be difficult to achieve. The Secretary of State and all the ministers in the department have the ministers in the department have made it clear how vital it is that the creative sector, their interests are protected in the discussions. We are protected in the discussions. We will endeavour to make sure, of will endeavour to make sure, of course they are going to be part of the working groups, of course they will have a seat at the table. Will will have a seat at the table.

Will have their voice heard in all of that and yes, we have a job to do in reassuring them that this will be a workable solution. They will see workable solution. They will see that it is in everyone's best interests to have that workable long-term solution that we are long-term solution that we are working to achieve. Those working groups will address the issue of groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative in a way that supports the creative in as well as the tech sector.

Those working groups alongside the consultation responses will inform the reports, proposals and economic assessments the government is already committed to. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements. However we have to see what comes out of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this stage. As I set out earlier, His Majesty's Government has made three additional commitments on this matter. Firstly these reports will be expanded to two topics, extraterritorial tea and enforcement.

Secondly the impact assessment will be published within nine months and thirdly if we have not completed the report within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament. Turning to the first subsection of the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models and the impact of such use on copyright owners and the wider economy are all things that should be considered as things that should be considered as we consider our policy approach.

As is the framework in terms of copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm these aspects will be considered already as part of the impact assessment and the government will report as it goes along and is committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives absolute clarity to noble Lord's, such as the Earl of Dundee, that the government agrees that these issues are important and we are working on them.

The only disagree with the part of the amendment on the basis that an additional statement is not needed, but returned to the second subsection of the amendment I can see the appeal of requiring the government to make progress with legislation in this space. The government has heard the concerns from the noble lords mac. The Secretary of State already said in the other place that he proposes legislation as soon as he can. Matt the noble Lords. He has also set out a plan for what such legislation should contain.

Many of the things in the noble Lady's amendments may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. So I ask noble Lords, what would they say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation? That there consider thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? And what of the technical groups who have worked with us to come up with a solution, they must abide by regulations that ignore their input.

And what to the elected House which has already voted these amendments down three times. Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited before the recess, we believe in consulting and properly legislation, but just not today. -- And properly legislating, but just not today. I repeat, the government has heard the concerns of your Lordships House and set out its plans to address them. This must be allowed to run its This must be allowed to run its course.

I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness's new amendment. Doing so would further delay our plan to deal with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that the bill will do. From allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK, data preservation notices for coroners, new offences such as deep fake abuses, digital verification purposes, smart data schemes to grow the economy, these are all things that are waiting in the wings for the Data Bill to become legislation.

I hope noble Lords will refer on this. We are making compromises, we have made a compromise, we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Lady's amendment which we do not feel is going to give us a comprehensive and detailed solution, which we know is necessary to make which we know is necessary to make all sectors, or to reassure all sectors in the UK that we can make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this work. I beg to move. My Lords, first of all may I thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly pleased that the noble particularly pleased that the noble Lord little things I have one. I Lord little things I have one. I hope he expects that one of my amendments will make it onto the face of the bill because that is face of the bill because that is what winning looks like to me. But I actually want to make a broader actually want to make a broader point about winning and losing.

I point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I think that the noble Lady the minister, and I know that she has minister, and I know that she has told the House to be very careful how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that in Private Eye have reached out to all sides of Eye have reached out to all sides of the government to try and discuss this to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned, which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change, are not something that the government came to me with before the debate.

That was the first I heard of them. I think that is probably because she knows they are not profound and they are not significant, but I think that I wish she had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear, I hope my words were clear, I will reread Hansard, but stealing is happening and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument I have made. I have been very, very careful in making it and as many people around the House have said, the previous amendment, you know, the government cannot have it both ways.

You don't like the drafting, but you don't draft anything else. You don't like the comprehensive one, but this isn't comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round. The government is forcing round. The government is forcing ping-pong upon us. My real wish is that the government finds strength, humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was the power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. Was a good amendment, that is the amendment the government should be backing.

Today's amendment is a just in case, and I really must say, do not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They will be very happy if you act now. Period. That is not a problem and I willing to take that... But the government has offered no timeline. Voluntary systems while the longer thing continues. My Lords, Atsu Nestle can. I do not doubt every minister can. I do not doubt every minister has in their heart the will to do the right thing, but the government is blocking and entire industry protecting their property and unfortunately like the noble Lord unfortunately like the noble Lord Lord Forsyth I seem to have this socialist inclination that people socialist inclination that people should have a fair days pay for their labour.

My Lords, I seek the agreement of the House. agreement of the House.
17:15
17:15
17:27
17:27
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the measures announced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the measures announced by the government on 22 May are presented under the guise of presented under the guise of necessity. We risk eroding public confidence in the criminal justice confidence in the criminal justice system. This country has always stood for a system of justice and is stood for a system of justice and is firm and fair and can be trusted by the public. Yet, some of these the public. Yet, some of these proposals for short of that standard.

If the government is truly committed to ensuring that violent and repeat offenders are punished, and repeat offenders are punished, it is entirely within their means to create the prison capacity required. Instead, we are being asked to accept a series of troubling changes on the grounds that there is no alternative. My Lords, what do these reforms entail? A reduction in time served, including a proposal for many offenders to spend nearly 1/3 of their sentence in custody. Let us consider one example, a burglar sentenced to 18 months, entering a plea of guilty, might still have plea of guilty, might still have infinite weeks in prison.

My Lords, that is scarcely credible as a deterrent, let alone for a justice system. Such outcomes can only erode confidence in our system. What is to replace custodial punishment? We heard of an expanded use of electronic tagging. Whilst we support the appropriate use of technology, let us be candid, electronic tags are not a substitute to custody. As mentioned by my right honourable friend in the other place, the Ministry of Justice's own pilot scheme showed that 71% of tagged individuals reached curfew.

Is that the kind of protection that we are offering the law-abiding public. Meanwhile, over 17,000 individuals are currently under remand awaiting trial. A number that is forecast to rise. In light of this, Will the government now asked on the call for additional court sitting days so that these cases can be heard and justice delivered be heard and justice delivered without undue delay? And, my Lords, what of capacity? And of the previous government, we did deliver the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era.

The government prison capacity strategy mentions the construction of a mere 250 rapid deployment of cells. That is hardly adequate. When Texas undertook similar reforms, it is very model on which this plan is based, it built over 75,000 prison based, it built over 75,000 prison The government's present approach to justice simply cannot inspire public confidence. We must ensure, and indeed the public expect that the most prolific and dangerous offenders should face the consequences of their actions.

So I would press the noble Lord the Minister on several critical points. First, following the announcements made in the other place on 22 May, can he confirm without equivocation that violent sexual offenders and those who have committed crimes against children will be excluded from the early release schemes. Second, given the review's emphasis on reducing custodial sentences, what assurances can be government provide that public confidence in the justice system, particularly among victims and their families, will not be undermined by these changes? Third, does the noble Lord the Minister agreed that electronic the Minister agreed that electronic tagging cannot substitute for secure custody, particularly in cases involving violent or high-risk offenders? Fourth, what assessment has the government made of the capacity of our prisons in light of the sentencing proposals and will they commit to a robust and credible prison building programme that reflects the scale of these proposed reflects the scale of these proposed reforms? Finally, my Lords, it is deeply regrettable that the voices of victims and their families appear to have been overlooked in this review.

The noble Lord the Minister clarify why the independent sentencing review appears to have taken such limited input from victims groups and will the government commit to a public consultation to ensure their voices are heard before implementing these recommendations? My Lords, I am obliged.
17:33
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Unlike the noble and lonely Lord, we welcome the independent sentencing review and we also applaud the appointment of the new leader. He was an inspired and independent choice and despite some reservations with the report we regard the tenor of the review as brave, principled and most importantly, evidence based. We also agree with the government in their statement that the previous administration is largely responsible for the crisis in our prisons. Our running out of prison space, the dilapidation of our prison estate, the ineffective approach to rehabilitation, to community sentences and to the privation service and the continuing pervasive recidivism, these are the factors that got us into this mess and they are largely the last government's fault.

The irony is that the last government claim to be dedicated to Law & Order, just as the noble and learned law -- learned Lord does now. I will ask the Minister, given the trends and present building plans, but the inevitable delays in the implementation, can the government realistically hope to avoid the kind of stopgap emergency responses that we found necessary over the last year? Moving on the proposals for three-part prison sentences and an earned progression model are persuasive.

It is interesting that they originated in Texas, not a state known for soft liberalism, but my understanding is that the Texan government believes that these crime reduction measures would save the taxpayer's dollar. As the government yet estimated the possible cost savings from these proposals overall? My Lords, we agree that we desperately need the increased investment in probation and probably even more investment. The commitment to more tagging and community monitoring we regard as clearly sensible, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could say how far it is envisaged that tagged offenders will be confined to their homes and what plans there are for work, education and training for offenders while they are tagged and under supervision? My Lords, the use under supervision? My Lords, the use of recall for minor breaches...

The individual lengths of the short records will be determined? We on these benches have been arguing for years for a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, along with the majority of experts in the field. I can see the argument for leaving some judicial discretion in place in certain circumstances. I see the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby nodding and I know that he has had experiences of short sentencing is -- short sentencing in his time as a magistrate. Preaching protection orders call for the protection of victims, but nevertheless we need assurance that this reform will give the presumption against short sentences that we have long been seeking.

We accept the argument for making community sentences tougher and for intensive supervision calls, but we do seek an assurance that the primary purpose of community sentences will continue to be to rehabilitate offenders and enable them to turn their lives around. We do have concerns about the pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal with chemical castration. The government that will be government commit to long-term monitoring of this? My noble friend Baroness Brinton has been at the forefront of securing more compassionate treatment of victims and exclusion zones as proposed will be an important new protection.

May we also have a commitment to making the criminal justice system more approachable and less traumatic for the teams, particularly in the cases of sexual violence? We have had some progress in this area, but not nearly enough and hence the loss of so many cases. That would be a helpful complement for the government's principal commitment to ensure that women are less often sent to prison and that women defendants are more compassionately treated by the criminal justice system. criminal justice system.
17:38
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, when this government asked David Cork and he's independent expert panel to conduct a review of sentencing the task was clear. Our country must never run out of prison places again. I want to put on record my appreciation for the work of the panel, including Lord Annette who is well known and respected in this place. In considering its proposals the independent sentencing review has followed the evidence and looked at examples of good practice across the world.

What is clear to me as someone who has been searching for answers to these well-known problems are over 20 years, the panel has carefully and methodically approach the challenges head-on. This review sets out major reform. It is an important moment for the justice and one we cannot afford to ignore. As the Lord Chancellor has set out once again our prisons are running out of space. Let me be clear, we must always have space in our prisons for dangerous offenders. Despite building as quickly as we can demand for prison places will still outstrip supply by 9,500 cells in early 2028.

If our prisons collapse, courts must suspend trials, police must support arrest and crime goes unpunished. We face a total breakdown of law and order in this breakdown of law and order in this country. And yet the last government over 14 years and just 500 places to our prison estate. At the same time sentence lengths rose. It now. This government to end the cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons. Since taking office just 11 months ago this government has opened 2,400 places.

Last month the Lord Chancellor and that's an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031. This is the largest expansion since the Victorian era. However, the investment is vital, but it is still not sufficient. We need to do more. We cannot just build our way out of this crisis. This government has been clear, we also need to reform sentencing and end the cycle of reoffending. The reports central issue means that prisoners will not automatically leave at a certain point.

Instead they release date will be determined by their behaviour. Under the new model prisoners within automatic release of 40% or 50% will and their release. The earliest possible release point will be at the one third mark with additional time added on for bad behaviour. Those servings down to determinant sentences, their release point will be at 50% additional time added on for bad behaviour. If they follow prison rules and behave well they will an early release. If they do not, they will be locked up for longer.

It is that simple. Behaviour-based approach echoes the model the Lord Chancellor witnessed in Texas. I have been fascinated by the Texan model for a number of years and I have followed the outcomes achieved closely, as has the noble Lord. If you are a prison geek like me, this is what you seek. Examples of what works and it clearly does work. There reforms that started in 2007 has led to 16 prisons closing, few have 's and lower reoffending.

And to address concerns from Lord Walker regarding dangerous offenders, I can assure my Lords that these reforms will not apply to those serving extended determinant sentences, including the most dangerous offenders. Sentences most dangerous offenders. Sentences being served for terror offences or state threat offences will be eligible for early release. I also confirmed the government did engage with police colleagues and other stakeholders across the criminal justice system prior to the publication of the review, as did David Cork. We wanted to ensure we had a joined up approach.

The full details of these policies including an impact assessment will accompany the forthcoming legislation. Noble Lords have raised questions about what these reforms will mean for victims, in particular victims of domestic abuse. My priority is clear. Everything we do is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse it is victims who pay the price. Our first responsibility is to make sure this does not happen and that is why we have consulted widely with victims groups. The review recommends several important measures, including the way we identify domestic abusers at sentencing so we can monitor and manage them more effectively.

We recognise how important it is to make sure we know who all domestic abuse offenders are, even when there offenders are not obviously linked to domestic abuse. We welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts. I also want to clarify that the review did not recommend entirely abolishing short sentences. Under our proposed reforms judges will retain discretion to hand down short sentences in exceptional circumstances. I note the review references this, including giving respite to victims of domestic abuse.

To improve transparency in the system we will also be extending provision of free sentencing remark transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual. All of these are necessary steps that I believe showed this government has recognised the unique harms caused by violence against women and girls. Further steps will be outlined when we publish our 10 year cross government strategy violence against women and girls in the summer. Noble Lords have raised important questions about public protection and the role of probation. The government can ices the important role probation has.

It is more than important, it is vital. That is why we are increasing funding for Probation by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review, an increase of 45%. That will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders which the evidence has shown cuts crime and next our streets safer. If we are to see more punishment in the community, it is essential that works. That is why we are looking at new severe financial penalties, which will see the assets of offenders seas, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime and expand the use of punishment such as travel and driving bans that will curtail the offender's liberty.

I draw attention to supervision courts. These impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements that will have offenders regularly brought in front of a judge. If they do not play ball, the offenders are sent straight to prison. Intensive supervision courts work. I visited a court in Birmingham to see how it turns lives away from crime. I'd also like to draw attention to the recommendations relating to female Many are mothers Many are mothers and Many are mothers and their enforcement has life changing impact.

Around two thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody received short sentences. And around the same number of victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the women's Justice Board which was set up last year with the aim of closing a women's prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. I am pleased to note that the recommendations are short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards our objective. Let's inform on some of the other areas of focus.

The number of offenders recalled to prison has doubled since 2018, putting increasing pressure on the system. Today's figure is around 13,000, the sentencing review makes sensible recommendations to address this. And it is suggested that where they comply, the recall should be cut to 56 days. We will be setting out the details when we legislate. In conclusion, in our response to the review, this government will take the steps necessary to end the capacity crisis and end the cycle of reoffending.

To do that, we must agree with others, we have to build prisons on a historic scale, deport foreign national offenders and speed up the court but we also must reform sentencing anyway that puts the justice system on a more sustainable footing. We have the right ideas, the long-term funding and a government determined to resolve this crisis. I invite the noble Lord to engage with me as we pursue this reform. reform.
17:48
17:49
17:50
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I broadly support the review, he is trying to address two major problems, court and prison population are right control, one is increased sentencing, I cannot remember a political party who promised in any election they would reduce sentences. We all competed to give higher sentences and I'm not sure it has had the effect desired. Of course, there are some offences. Of course, the decrease in apparel available, this review attempted to do something about the latter.

I broadly support it but I wonder if the Minister will agree with me about three points, which I am concerned. Partly, if we remove... I know the government proposed this, to remove the shorter sentences, you have to be careful which ones you entirely receive. -- Remove. The phrasing is important, how will these people come out, in what groups, in what numbers? That links to the second point, about police and probation resources. I agree, the government is increasing probation spending, but it will not be spent at once.

How do we match those things so that the police and probation are prepared for that release? Finally, I agree with attacking, those who favour people commit offences on tagging, generally they commit less, but whether tagging is linked to their behaviour, it can have an effect. The final point I'm looking to, those tags go into a commercial company, did not go into the police service directly. Surely the time has come to create a separate body to monitor the tags and react immediately.

I'm not convinced at the moment that there are.
17:51
17:53
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:57
17:58
17:59
18:01
18:02
18:03
18:04
18:05
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I cannot comment on those cases. It's up to the judiciary what sentences they hand out to offenders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also welcome David Gorka's review and the government was not review and the government was not response to it. I agree with not approaching this in a nonpolitical approaching this in a nonpolitical manner, but I fear that is probably manner, but I fear that is probably pie in the sky. Could I put it in a slightly different way? Can we try and approach this by seeing what and approach this by seeing what works? Do these long prison sentences work? My own view is they sentences work? My own view is they do not, but as important to these do not, but as important to these reforms is making sure the substitute of people spending more substitute of people spending more time in the community works and what is critical is money.

I hope the government will be prepared to submit its detailed costings for critical examination because we cannot afford to get this wrong. There are three areas I think that concern me. First of all, I agree with Lord Hogan-Howe, tagging should be something efficient in this electronic age. I do not want to say much about the companies that have been used, but they have a fairly dubious history in some respects. Secondly, it does seem to me that we ought to be very careful as to how we deal with people who offend.

When we tried this 20 years ago that was a problem. Someone broke the conditions we were too slow at doing anything about it. And thirdly, therefore that needs funds, and thirdly can we ensure there is proper money for the probation service and that is examine critically because all of those are critical to the point that has been made, how do we have confidence in the community? Remember as a young judge going to the north and being told when I advocated community centre, young man, and I think I was relatively young then, we do not relatively young then, we do not believe in that here.

You have to make them believe in it. make them believe in it. make them believe in it.
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:10
18:11
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is key to that. The bill before us today addresses a number of those areas and the recently published White Paper runs parallel to this bill today covering a number of other areas. This bill is predominantly about the issues of illegal and irregular migration and it is clear I think to noble Lords and any observer that the current situation cannot go on. Criminal gangs have had six years now to take over the English channel unchecked and to set up and run criminal enterprises that exploit people at their most memorable.

As a result there is a massive strain on an already overstretched system. It's in nobody's interest to continue as we are. This bill seeks to make real change. The criminal gangs have no respect for the lives of those who they traffic. Often people are crammed into unseaworthy vessels of 50 people or more, sometimes facing threats and intimidation when they raise concerns and as a result we have also seen individuals tragically die in the Channel. Make no mistake, this is part of a broader criminal enterprise that seeks to bring weapons drugs and other items used to carry out criminal activities into our community smuggled into the United Kingdom.

The government is committed to taking down the gang to risk the lives of so many people to those in our communities. This government is taking the necessary actions to secure our borders to bring immigration and the asylum system under control and to go after the danger oil -- and to go after the dangerous criminal gangs. The government is determined to tackle regular migration, to bring that control to our borders and to stop the appalling loss of life in the alongside this we have a properly functioning asylum and regression system that delivers timely decisions to those individuals and for those with no right to be here to make sure they are removed.

The legislation before us today will strengthen the UK's border security. It's part of a serious credible plan to protect UK borders that sees the government working closer with our international partners upstream and Near neighbourhoods, enhancing operational activities nationally and internationally, and ensuring our law enforcement and operational teams have the powers and tools they need to identify, disrupt and dismantle this organised crime activity. So what are the key measures in the bill? Firstly, the bill faces a new Border Security Commander and his role and a statutory footing and clearly explains the functions which will allow this role to be an enduring one which brings together the skills and expertise of variety of agencies to tackle the issues faced, united behind a series and set of border security priorities.

Secondly the bill establishes landmark new offences contained within the legislation which will provide law enforcement agencies working across borders to with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime. It should not be a surprise to noble Lords because the Labour Party stood on our manifesto commitment in the election almost a year ago to introduce new counterterrorism star powers which will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening UK border security.

This bill is what the new offences will deliver. Amongst those new offences is a new offence that will ensure that action is taken against those who endanger others during sea crossings to the UK. These crossings are exceptionally dangerous and I regret the loss of life we have seen even this year. The government is determined to prevent such loss of life in the Channel with these new powers. The new powers will also be created in the bill to seize and search the electronic devices where there is suspicion of involvement in organised immigration criminal activity.

It will build a better picture for law enforcement agencies investigating gangs. The bill will also ensure that datasharing capabilities will be expanded to assist in developing the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime and other threats, and make it easier for public agencies to share information and enhance the ability to act. Measures to allow the DVLA for example to share trailer data and HMRC to share customs data will enhance the work of Border Force. The bill also gives biometric provisions.

It will allow the provision of biometric support in Scotland, fixing the situation that has developed well or that has developed well or enforcement officials are needed to go to police stations to carry out these tasks. Measures will also focus on serious and organised crime and make it clear that it will be an offence to possess the named articles in the bill which we know are used in criminality and harm communities. There is also an expansion of the serious prevention order regime introducing new interim orders which will allow law enforcement to act immediately to Let me be clear, the plans in the last government to wonder were unworkable, and cost billions of pounds, they would not have dealt with the numbers of migrants in the channel, 700 million was spent to date and it is time to close it down.

Only four people left the United Kingdom under the Rwanda scheme and they left voluntarily. This legislation before us repeals that costly and unworkable measure, as a manifesto commitment, introduced by the previous government, and it introduces new provisions to address the real challenges faced. To tackle harm and build a robust system. Looking beyond those provisions, which repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Swedes of legal migration, the bill will also equip Immigration Services Commissioner with the tools that they need to identify and tackle abuses within the immigration sector.

The administration -- authority will have powers to fine or suspend those who provide poor quality advice to those going through the process, restoring trust in the system by tackling such poor in the system by tackling such poor practice. We are also introducing measures to ensure properly functioning immigration system. The Bill that shoes in new statutory timeline for appeals as part of the work tackle the backlog of cases. To assist cases moving through the system and provide individuals clarity on outcomes, those cases where an individual is in asylum accommodation...

To taxpayers expense and non-detained foreign national offenders should be prioritised as far as possible. The Bill also provides for greater protections against harming our communities, supported, which I know the noble Lord will support, the removal of foreign national criminals and ensuring that sexual offences are treated with the seriousness they deserve. For example, those convicted of schedule 3 offences will not benefit from refugee protection. We recognise the impact that these offences have on victims and our communities and we are determined that individuals who commit them cannot benefit from protections.

There will also be stronger conditions placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal from the United Kingdom. These measures mean that those who do not qualify for asylum or protection but cannot be removed due to obligations in law can have certain conditions placed upon them if they pose a threat to the public. They are also strengthening the powers available to the Home Office where an individual is subject to deportation on the basis that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

This measure organises -- removes ambiguity around whether powers may be used. We also extend the right to work scheme to those who fall into working relationships which currently will help crack down on those working illegally. Many of whom are being exploited for cheap labour and there is an objective of the government to try and drive down that cheap labour market which is an underbelly in our communities at large. Finally, again, I know this will be welcomed by members of the House, the changes to the EU Settlement Scheme will confirm, as a matter of UK law, what the UK has sought to do in practice since the beginning.

That is to ensure that all EU citizens and their families with status under the scheme have equal rights in the United Kingdom. The main priority of the bill is to protect the U.K.'s border and make changes to enable a properly functioning Immigration and Asylum Act system. We are ensuring that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported whilst those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections that the UK has a long history of providing for those in need.

My Lords, we have a responsibility to the British people who rightly expect our borders to be secure in our laws to be enforced. And we have a moral duty to prevent tragedies. The plan for us is a clear, impactful plan for change, this Bill will restore order, restore trust in immigration and provide law enforcement the tools that they need to be able to tackle people smuggling gangs who exploit individuals and place them in perilous situations in the channel.

This government is committed to a fully functioning system and we will debate migration in the white paper in due course. But this Bill is about protecting those who need it, removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. To date, since the government was elected, it has seen 600 boats and engines taken down, social media is, insured 30,000 people have returned since the election, and is taking action on illegal working visits and arrests by increasing them by 40% and 42% respectively.

The government needs more powers to prove the performance in this question of legal migration and this Bill gives those powers to the agencies to make that difference and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this Bill be ready second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ready second time. Can I thank the noble Lord the Minister for opening this debate Minister for opening this debate today, it promises to be both interesting and informative and I interesting and informative and I look forward to the Maiden speech of my noble friend who, of course, I my noble friend who, of course, I have the pleasure of working with in the Department of transport and I know will make a considerate and patient to the debate. The noble Lord has previous experience in the Lord has previous experience in the area of immigration and I look forward to the contribution later.

forward to the contribution later. Let me begin by welcoming the fact that, after years of proposing measures to improve border security measures to improve border security and crackdown on illegal migration, the Labour Party finally realise the importance of greater control over our borders. There are some positive noises coming from the government actions. Clause 41 grants textures it the ability to detain a person whilst they are pending a
18:25
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
deportation decision. It reinterprets the construction of reinterprets the construction of article 43 of the Refugee Convention to include conviction of an offence to include conviction of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the list of offences that constitute serious crimes for which constitute serious crimes for which refugees might be removed. This is right, no person who entered this country and commits a crime, regardless of their method of entry or status should be permitted to or status should be permitted to remain.

Unfortunately, that is where remain. Unfortunately, that is where our agreement ends. Whilst, as I said, the government has begun to move in the right direction, this move in the right direction, this Bill does too little, too slowly, it does nothing to deter illegal crossings, it does nothing to crossings, it does nothing to expedite the removal of illegal migrants and its listening to reduce the scale make it does nothing to reduce the scale of illegal immigration. I am pleased to see the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics which show that net migration to the UK for 2024 was 431,000, half of the previous year.

This is all thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative government, as the ONS has acknowledged. Last year, my right honourable friend strengthened Immigration Rules, raising the minimum income for those in skilled worker visa's, family visas, imposing a limit on foreign students able to bring independent. It is clear that Conservative policies have delivered. Let us look at what this government has promised and what it has delivered. The 2024 manifesto promised to turn the page and restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly and the rules are properly enforced.

Yet the government has presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter. With 31,276 people claiming asylum. And the number of people being given a grant of protection has increased to 17,477 protection has increased to 17,477 in quarter four of 2024, up from 7185 in quarter two. They have reversed the progress made by the previous government in reducing asylum claims. Not only this, the current pledge to close wartime hotels, after the previous government reduced the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels to 29,585 by 30 June 2024, since the election, those numbers jumped to 38,709 on 31 December 2024.

Representing a rise of 22.3%. This begs the question, when will they end the use of asylum hotels, as they promised in the manifesto? Now, we heard, time and time again, during the election, that they will smash the gangs, but it is now evident that this slogan was hyperbole. Can the Minister tell me how many gangs have been smashed by the policies of this government? I look forward to receiving those figures, perhaps in the closing speech. The Minister was keen to highlight the of the Border Security Command and counterterrorism style powers.

However, the first line of clause one states the Secretary of State must designate a civil servant as the Border Security Command. Clauses 3, four and five state the functions of the commander, the duty to prepare annual reports and the duties of cooperation. That is it. What the government has presented us with is simply a redesignated civil servant without the power to command anything. That extends across the whole Bill. The government has talked about this legislation as comprising to have new measures and yet they are appealing to pieces of a decision that would have had that exact effect.

Clauses 37 and 38 and the Illegal Migration Act of 2023. The Safety of Rwanda Act, ably taken through the House by my laudable friend -- noble friends, would have had the first flight taking off, providing a suitable deterrent to those considering taking the journey. The Minister pointed to the government focus on people smuggling gangs. We would agree that those gangs must be pursued. For theirs is a repost of trade. It is not enough to tackle supply, we must tackle demand.

Whilst there are large lumps of people who are undeterred from paying traffickers, the trade will continue. The remand scheme was a deterrent that would have hit demand. This built on the work of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and I pay tribute to my noble friend. Through that legislation. Which created an obligation for the Home Secretary to remove any person who arrives illegally and prevented illegal entrants from claiming asylum. The previous Conservative government also struck a returns deal with Albania which meant the number of legal arrivals fell from 12,658 in 2022, died just 924 in 2023.

That is 93% reduction in Albanian nationals crossing the Channel. If the government is serious about reducing the legal migration, why remove the deterrence that were legislated for. We can see the effect of the policy already. Noble Lords will have seen the figures over the weekend, on 31 May, 1194 migrants cross the channel in small boats. The highest figure for a single day this year. That brings the total number of migrants who crossed in small boats so far this year to 14,811.

A 42% higher increase than the same point last year. Not only does this Bill and do much of the work, it provides to deaf fails to provide suitable alternatives. The offence is unlikely to have any real impact. It can only be committed if the person has already committed an offence has already committed an offence ANSYS which were inserted into that act in 2022 which my Noble Friend The Opposition took through this House. And section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 already makes it an offence to assist facilitate unlawful entry into the United Kingdom, and offence which is punishable by life sentence thanks to the changes made by my Noble Friend in the Nationality and Borders Act.

Furthermore, the powers contained enclosed 20, 21 and 23, authorising officers to search, seize, and access electronic devices, already exists in clause 15 heading to of the illegal migration act, which the Government are appealing. Would it not make more sense to keep the powers rather than replace them with something virtually identical? Of course, they virtually identical? Of course, they do not have to include these new unquoted powers if they are not the same bill, in section 15 schedule two of the Illegal Migration Act act.

It is apparent that this bill presents a missed opportunity, even after this legislation becomes more activist lawyers will still be able to use the Human Rights Act were in vexatious claims to prevent the Government legitimate removal of those who have abused that migration system entering the country illegally and committing offences. The Government should follow our policy of disallowing the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration law, thereby ensuring the role of those with no right to be here, the Government has indicated that there willing to shift the direction of the immigration white paper on article 8 of the convention reconsidered and the Attorney-General has indicated his desire as well.

This bill also presents the Government with the opportunity to tighten the conditions and indefinite leave to remain. The immigration visa presented by my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary would ensure that indefinitely to remain can only be granted if the applicants summary does not for below £38,700, and if they do not apply for any form of state benefits. Being granted the ability to remain in the UK indefinitely is a privilege, not a right. As such, we believe that those wishing to obtain their privilege would have made net contribution to our country.

Raising the threshold would ensure precisely that. Given the Government newfound vigour for new stringent protocols I sure they would be amenable to such policies. Let us not forget that reducing the net migration to the UK is overwhelmingly backed by the British people. They have found that six to 5% of the public believe that immigration should be reduced and that is supporters of all political parties, matter and, given that 57% of the Liberal Democrat voters and 49% of labour voters support cutting immigration and 62% of the public agreed that it is too easy for people to live here illegally, including 61% of the Liberal Democrats and 15% of labour voters and we would all do well to remember this, this is the voice of the public and it is precisely what they are demanding of their parliamentarians.

This does not deliver what the British people desire or deserve. Where are the powers to prevent legal challenges being used to thwart legitimate removals? Where are the powers to ensure the deportation of all foreign criminals? Where is the deterrent? Where are the measures? The answer is, of course, that they are simply not there. These are
18:36
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That That could That could and That could and should That could and should be That could and should be fixed, That could and should be fixed, taking strong measures to deal with taking strong measures to deal with the United Kingdom, so I start with an initial question to the Noble an initial question to the Noble Lord the Minister, and it is this. Is the intention of this bill to Is the intention of this bill to stop dangerous journeys by boat or is it to stop people coming to claim asylum? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of its intention in this bill.

Beyond these ventures, we support the controlled and planned migration controlled and planned migration system, both stopping dangerous journeys and also creating a safe route to asylum, and those that do not qualify for asylum are removed swiftly and humanely. For those in the margins, there are some who may persuade in other measures in the bill but our concern would surely be for those also to satisfy the grounds for the United Kingdom and currently having negligible or non- existent ways to enter this country safely.

Those who travelled here by small boat, 74% are successful with their asylum claims and that is not taking any appeals into consideration. So, the answer to that initial question is fundamental to understanding the government's intentions. Welcomed the measures in the bill tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel. We support the act and significant part of the legal. However, we are concerned that this bill is purely punitive approach will not achieve its aims. We must be honest about the range of interventions needed to bring change.

Photos and tougher token immigration that fails to deliver promised outcomes, and as a country we can't afford the consequences of more Government broken promises on this issue, so whilst prosecuting criminal gangs is essential, as long as desperate people seek refuge in the United Kingdom without alternative routes, demand will persist and criminals will profit. Given the strong push factors for those fleeing persecution in countries like Eritrea or Iran, we need interventions that change in individuals calculation.

Currently, paying a smuggler to bring them to safety is seen as the dust or the only option available. We propose building on the successful UK settlement scheme already referred to by the Noble Lord the Minister. And family refugee reunion along with the account pilot for humanitarian visa. Using the services of United Nations bodies in country or enclosed countries, this will allow the basis for the successful asylum claim to travel safely to the UK for their application to be considered. If the aim is to reduce dangerous crossings, this would help.

The Government to patrol and ordered unplanned process and create an evidence-based to evaluate such an approach. Safe routes are not an alternative to enforcement. They complement efforts to target criminal gangs, both approaches must work together. We are rightly concerned at the expenditure plus the maintaining and accommodating nearly 1/4 of a million people which includes those going through appeals in the processing backlog. And the Government, in our view, has missed the opportunity to include in its legislation permission to allow asylum seekers to work after three months.

Whilst we welcome the 13% decline in the asylum backlog, the proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the last decade, from 25% at the end of 2014 to 59% at the end of 2024. When the current working ban was introduced by the Labour Government in 2002, the argument about processing times was identical. Six months target to process applications and those granted asylum were then able to work, but the six-month target was not met then and is not met now.

Allowing asylum seekers to work would help reduce the asylum support budget and child poverty. It would assist local authorities in supporting newly recognised refugees. If someone has a job where they are more likely to support themselves, reducing homelessness and state benefits claims it would also improve the ship between those communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be paying their way. Visible delivery is what the Government needs and this policy contributes to that, especially when they see the hotels being closed.

The Government has never produced any evidence which suggests that employment rights play a role in determining people's choice of destination when seeking safety. The evidence is, however, that employment rights are largely unknown to asylum seekers before the arrive in the United Kingdom. We have one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would align the UK with other member states in countries like France, Spain, Italy and Germany, asylum seeker skin the right to work much earlier, after six months, three months, or even less.

First application processing and enhance working rights should be complimentary policies, so that is complimentary policies, so that is why we also see the three month service standard for asylum decisions. We welcome the government's appeal of sections 31 to 35 of the Illegal Migration Act. But if integration is the ultimate goal for us as a society, then we should not choke off the chance to come a British citizen simply on the basis of how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Recent updates to the character requirement guidance limits access to citizenship for refugees who enter the UK regularly.

This is counter-productive to integration and cohesion for those settled in the United Kingdom. The unclear policy guidance deters refugees from applying for citizenship due to the risk of wasting thousands of pounds if the application is used out of hand. We also have deep concerns over the expansion and retention of section 59 of the illegal Immigration Act which relates to the safe country. The list is problematic when decision-makers must declare asylum claims from countries listed even where there is evidence of persecution.

For example, Georgia, where Members of Parliament are being locked out because they have taken offence at the current Government. And that has been sanctioned by the UK for their human rights abuses, and what this means is that individualised assessment of asylum claims is essential and unnecessary. Countries may be safe from some people but not always for all people. We are concerned that the bill retains detention powers in the Illegal Migration Act and without implementing safeguards by the House inquiry.

And the lack of progress as the report recommendations and recent reports by the chief inspector indicate And where this is not imminent and for longer than necessary and vulnerable people are detained when they should not be and places to cut ham and places no pressure on the Home Office to deal with cases. And with a 28 day time limit under tension which follows the recommendations and joining the APD is on migration and effigies. This would reduce unnecessary and unlawful detention and where removal unlawful detention and where removal is imminent.

We are also concerned and this is too broad and risks criminalising those seeking asylum and we will seek to amend these clauses at Committee stage. And my Noble Friend will expand on the modernist later. Finally, there is much to be done to secure action across our part of this continent. Resetting the relationship with the EU and its agencies is still in its headline stages and my Noble Friend will examine these issues later. I return, as I started, to the fundamental question of supply and demand.

And the bill being light on its ability to change asylum seeker its ability to change asylum seeker While this bill may dent the ability of smuggling gangs to operate, it fails to answer the question as to how we plan a safe way for those seeking asylum. This bill has a number of good points, many missing points, and some major areas of concern. It is those areas which we will attempt to deal with during the course of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I were going to set our annual boarders build debates to music, I think I would pick Stravinsky. It's think I would pick Stravinsky. It's become a right of spring. With calls from the Conservative front bench, from the Conservative front bench, with ritual incantations that there can be a sacrifice of international law because we are a dual system.
18:46
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
law because we are a dual system. The immigration that Boryspil, three years the immigration, illegal Immigration Act, two years ago and then the ultimate observatory of the Rhondda macro and there -- the And make illegible ever to seek asylum here, all those that we sent to Rwanda. The House mended them all, and were overruled every time. So to me it's a great pleasure to welcome the 2025 bill because I can find nothing in it which is in clear breach of international law and this is the first in the last, in recent memory.

Moreover, I particularly welcome. Seven which wipes away the stain on the statute book that was the Rwanda act. That's the good news, and it's very good. But the bill isn't all good news. Getting rid of the 24 act but only part of the 23 act means we are still left with some bits of the 23 act which some of us opposed, including its removal of modern slavery productions for trafficking victims coerced into criminality. And we are also left with the default provisions of the 22 act which many have believed were in particular respects country to what we like to think is a national tradition of fairness, some of them inhumane, some of them also illogical.

It isn't humane that we should still be so reluctant to see families reunited. Yet the main white paper threatens to make reunions harder by imposing new language tests and new financial tests. It isn't right that clause 31 of this bill would delight legal redress to those unlawfully retained -- deny. All that the broad powers the Secretary of State gives on tagging and curfews isn't legal safeguards of any kind. And it's not humane or logical, as Lord German has pointed out, that those waiting the asylum view should still be denied the right to find a job.

Changing that would be a win-win. Good food, -- good for them, before the -- good for the... Only bad for the criminals. Changing the rules of the games is usually not right. I find the retroactivity in clause 31 particularly worrying. And my inbox reminds me that a much larger community are worried by the potential retrospective application of the proposed change tucked away in paragraph 264 and 266 of the white paper. People here on work visas, which they obtained under the points-based system, have found the right, have had the right to apply after five years for indefinite leave to remain.

But the white paper suggests that it will in future be 10 years. Is that just for new arrivals? Or does it mean that those already here will have to stay in limbo for another five years? The uncertainty about whether the uncertainty is to be extended is worrying many, my inbox shows. I think retrospection would be unfair, it usually is. If retrospection isn't the intention, it would be very good if the Minister could reassure the many who are worried, the FT tells us one point million are worried, that is not the government's intention.

I very much hope he can reassure us and conducive. Back in asylum, it bears repeating that the best way of stopping the boats, by putting the criminals out of business, is to provide a safe and legal route to sanctuary. But for many with a justifiable, well-founded fear of persecution in the words of that convention, we in practice provide such route. Take the Sudan, the world's biggest humanitarian catastrophe, worse even than Gaza. Sudan used to be our responsibility.

Should be on our conscience. A large Sudanese desperate in this country. But for those now fleeing the Civil War there, the carnage, the starvation, there is realistically no official way, no safe way that they can apply to join Sudanese people here. Virtually 100% of those who do get here come in by unofficial roots and seeking asylum granted asylum, such as the obvious horror they have left behind. But it's our fault that they have to, as they do, with many dying en route.

It doesn't need a bill to put that right. But it really should be put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right soon. I really enjoyed that speech. I was thinking more of the 1812 overture and the right of spring given how many immigration bills I have been through, here and in the have been through, here and in the House of Commons. Congratulate my noble friend on the frontbench. I noble friend on the frontbench. I thank him for his openness and willingness to listen and to discuss
18:52
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary issues that many of us are raising with him. I think this bill taken together with the white paper has many good suggestions and ways forward. We have mentioned quite a number of them already in the speeches that have been made, including the removal of criminals from our country, but actually undermine the legitimacy of our borders policy and of the welcome that people in this country generally wish to give to asylum seekers.

I think it's wonderful that we are setting aside the legacy of Suella Braverman and the absurdity of the Rwanda suggestion. Now it's gone, of course the government have been able to stop processing, sir the real speed the government has started to use this terrible Civil Service phrase that has crept even to speeches as well as written material and letters which is that they are working outpace, it's a terrible phrase. I really hope people stop using it.

It's a bit like stand ready which means we are doing absolutely nothing. We have really got to talk normal language. But the speeding up of the processing has been quite remarkable, as has the removal of people from the country had no right to be here and the government deserve real credit over the last 11 months for achieving that. Asylum has fallen substantially which gives us a chance I hope to have rational and sensible debate about what needs to be done.

Mention has been made of more in common which is now the favourite political polling company. The truth is, and anyone who goes and speaks to people in communities like the one that I live in and I used to represent, knows that it's the crossing of the channel in small boats that is worrying people. Its very nature it is going to worry them but not just because of the daily count, and the reporting in the newspapers but because of the danger and the worry that people have legitimately for what is happening with organised commonality.

My suggestions which have not been yet taken up our twofold, one that the new relationship with the president of France that has been developed by the Prime Minister, could lead us to develop a licensing scheme for boats, parts of boats, so they couldn't be purchased transported or sold, to people in France, and that would immediately have a major impact on the ability of the French to intervene in the warehouses and the transportation stop the other would be that we build on floors 45 of this bill which provides for electronic visas and documentation.

Given that we have the new NHS moves to digitalisation, the DVLA electronic programme, that unique people identify in the so-called government digital wallet, it's time actually had a sensible identity system for everyone and in that way, we could stop illegal working and access to public services for those who didn't have the right to be her. Let me and my brief speeches say have a real worry about, in this particular bill, and in the White Paper, about the attitude on naturalisation.

It seems to me that naturalisation is something that we should be strongly in favour of. I've had very good discussions with my noble friend about this. And I understand the difficulties he faces. But there is no legitimacy in saying that some people who are accepting now because we are setting aside the awful legislation that we had to deal with, there's no excuse, in saying that those whose asylum claims can be processed, should not be able to move in exactly the same way as others towards nationalisation.

It's really unfortunate because it undermines our credibility in every other area that we are now taking steps to reassure the world that we commit ourselves to our international obligations and to the way in which we carry throughout legal requirements. Please think again because it's bad for integration. Why would people want to stay here and not want to integrate? If they want to go home, that's fine. The real problem is now turning to people who are here legitimately on other visas who then attempts to claim asylum when their Visa stay is over.

And we could deal with that very easily by ruling out asylum for those whose country of origin has not had any material changes in terms of the threat to life and the danger to their liberty. So let us try and get some balance into this, in the same time is very strongly welcoming the measures that are being taken. One final small thing, because we are very late now with this bill in the evening, please go back on the white paper and set aside the notion of a charge on overseas students.

It's a particularly pernicious, unpleasant measure and unless the Home Office and the education department get their act together and understand that when people pay for a service, when that service is provided at full cost, when those costs allow us to cross-reference into research, when those costs allow us to maintain our university system, we retain our reputation across the world. When we start to pull the plug on it, we do ourselves damage for no good reason whatsoever. I haven't met anybody, even a reform writer, who think it's a bad idea to encourage overseas students to pay large sums of money to receive the service and then to go back home and tell the world what a wonderful place the United Kingdom really is.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a privilege to follow than of Lord Blunkett who is a person and
18:59
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
of Lord Blunkett who is a person and those ventures who I have a great deal of respect for. It's important to remember that although immigration attracts most public attention, it's only a fraction of total immigration. Legal immigration is continuing at a rate which dwarfs anything have known in our history, indeed it dwarfs all immigration put together and it will transform our country by the middle of the century or soon after. It could mean Indigenous population will be in a minority, strangers in the home and Tacoma phrase.

-- To coin a phrase. I think that will be regretted for those wanted to come here because of the traditions that had grown up over centuries and didn't really want to see them dwarfed into minority status. The case for mass immigration was economic, when made by Tony Blair, he claimed it was necessary to promote growth and fill vacancies. Over the two decades since we have experienced the highest influx of migration in our history, the slowest rate of growth since the Middle Ages.

And vacancies have doubled. So the thesis was absolutely discredited. But illegal immigration raises moral rather than economic issues. I want to ask a question about the moral basis which appears to underline this bill. The noble minister explained that this bill does two things, it strengthens the mothers to smash the gangs which will prevent migrants reaching shores and removed from the statute books the Rwanda Bill which aims to Buys it morally acceptable to try to prevent people from reaching the beaches of France but immoral and unacceptable to deter them from leaving France to come here? We know prevention does not work.

Saturday saw nearly 1,200 people arrive by boat in a single day. Most measures in the bill supposedly designed to be for prevention are trivial. The product prevention officer is going to be made statutory but will have no troops to command, only the power to convene existing operational agencies which I would have thought is the duty of the Minister. He will have to produce a strategy commissioned by the Government that it does not itself have a strategy, but even if these measures do have some practical impact, it is that tens of thousands of asylum seekers will continue to cross the channel, unless that is, of course, if the Government does succeed in smashing the gangs.

Then what happens? Does that mean that no asylum seekers would be able to reach this country? There would be no one to facilitate their journey? Or would they be able to come without the help of the gangs if these gangs are so cruel, there is a clear conflict within the government's policy, either their policy will work, in which case it. People getting here and claiming asylum, or, as we know, it won't. It will have precious little effect. I contrast we know that deterrence can work.

Once it was made clear that Albanians would be returned to Albania, the number of arrivals from that country, or at least purporting to be from that country, plummeted. When Australia demonstrated the certainty to return to Indonesian waters, the influx into Australia ended. The president given that choice between Sting and France and coming to England many migrant had to take the risky crossing, but if they knew that the choice was not between France and Britain or France and Rwanda, does anyone believe that they would opt for Rwanda? They would stay in the EU, if not in France, so prevention will not stop illegal in, which means that lives will continue to be lost and that will start to work and sometimes airflow, so I repeat my question, why is prevention morally acceptable for deterrence morally unacceptable? No, the Noble Lord that Minister has stated that the scheme was unworkable and did not explain why or in what ways and those that operated Australian system believe that Rwanda is eminently welcome and other countries are looking at adding an attracting to it.

Various leases have been breached to say that the Rwanda scheme would not work when prevention manifesting has work when prevention manifesting has The Noble Lord The Noble Lord from The Noble Lord from the The Noble Lord from the Liberal Democrats argued that we should create safe and legal routes and that is presented as if it is largely going to solve the problem of migration, as of course the Noble Lord Coeur it is indeed springtime all seasons he advocates the safe and legal route but the suggestion is that somehow we would have come by these safe legal routes, some of them might, but many of them would not, and many of them would be refused and would still want to come via boats, so many other people who at present do not attend, once the safe and legal routes are established will apply for them, so the total number of people is bound to increase significantly.

What I would like to know is whether those who are advocating this as a soft option would be happy to see these additional people ending up in Liberal Democrats constituencies, for example. I suspect that their voters who were never told at local level that this is Lib Dem policy to increase the number of people coming to this country would be very unhappy by what is proposed. You are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. I shall stop. The dioceses in which I serve covers one of the most diverse parts covers one of the most diverse parts of the country. Indeed, arguably, south London is one of the most
19:06
Lord Bishop of Southwark Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)
-
-
south London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. This diversity is often represented in our churches which have benefited, as has the rest of the country, from the great human fact of migration. It would be good to hear some recognition of this in Government and the Home Office statements. I think it is worth expressing that the vast majority of migrants to this country come here properly under the immigration rules, and thus there is no proper sense in which their arrival and settlement can be described as uncontrolled.

The Government made for good reasons of public policy wish to alter the rules or introduce fresh primary legislation, but that does not mean that a system and process is not in place, that applications are not assessed, fees paid, and the results match what Parliament has sanctioned. Should this bill pass it will be, I think, the 13th piece of primary legislation on immigration since 1997. No one should doubt the interest of successive Governments in this subject.

Indeed, I wish to congratulate the Government in that it has recently published a white paper on its further intentions in this area, something that happened only once after 2002. The return of more regular engagement on issues of policy is to be welcomed. The repeal of provision of the Safety of Rwanda Act is also welcome, though I note with concern what has been said in this debate about the weakening of the provisions of modern legislation. I wish to make a point about resources which I believe is relevant to the ill and its impact.

The bill is concerned to a significant extent with enforcement. Not least with the effectiveness and statutory footing of the new Border Security Command, but with managing migration into the UK estate resource intensive activity and I feel that attempts to substitute more Draconian sanctions in a concertina of legislation is no substitute for the resources needed to train its staff and border control casework intelligence and enforcement. There result is backlogs, asylum accommodation, which, in some instances, resembles a dystopian novel, and a detention estate which repeatedly fails inspection.

No consensual framework sketched out in Explanatory Notes will compensate for an absence of staff or mitigate hurried decisions were more nuanced decision is required. I appreciate that such comments are unwelcome in the closing days of a Spending Review, but please consider the pressure of those who wish to come to Europe is not mitigated by the abandoning of our commitment at 0.7% of GDP to aid. The allocation of billions of pounds of the aid budget to support asylum and refugee costs in this country is, to an extent, not matched by any other G7 country.

In 2024 it was just over £2.2 billion and the Prime Minister has recently been announcing a reduction in spending further turnoff .3% of GDP, stated that the foreign Commonwealth and development office is no longer to be the splendour or saver of last resort, that, at least, is welcome, as is the announcement that it will no longer be expected to meet unpredicted refugee costs during the yeah. These benches have never broken diverting humanitarian and development aid to other purposes.

Pragmatic grants alone to do so raises migratory pressures and increases the incidents of those whose geopolitical objectives are contrary to our own. Might there be space in this bill for something addressing safe and legal roots? And the nexus of humanitarian crises, if the Government is minded to do so at this point. The bill references powers to detain and I are spidering the Ministers attention to the refugee and migrant services alternative to detention pilot, a community-based alternative sponsored jointly by the Home Office and THC between 2020 and 2022.

The cost was significantly less than that of detention, while congenial to participants they understand that the absconding rate was low. I believe that Ministers at the time decided not to pursue it further. My I ask the Noble Lord the Minister whether the current Government might raises it the pilot and consider the greater use of this approach and I look forward to the Minister summing up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I thank the Minister for the way in which they have approached
19:12
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
way in which they have approached this subject, not just today but in months gone by. And also to express my gratitude for the many NGOs and organisations who have provided us with a superb roofing, almost too much of it, it took us most of yesterday to absorb some of it, but how helpful they have all been and how much work they have put into it. I want to say bit about new countries, about safe and legal routes, about children. Let me just start with the public.

I believe the whole debate about immigration in the south has been bedevilled by the way that public opinion has been quoted or what public opinion is believed to think. And there are times when senior people in office have a responsibility to talk about asylum seekers and refugees in ways that make committees feel more sympathetic rather than feeling hostile. I remember walking down in Hammersmith when we had earlier legislation and someone was shouting at me and normally when people shouted us we know it is abuse, do we not? We have had it happen to us, but, oh no, she shouted at me and said keep going with your amendment.

Goodness me, I was so encouraged by it. And I do believe that in debating these issues we must be aware that public opinion has to be one over. But I welcome the measures in this bill to include smugglers and traffickers and the things about it I would like to see changed will give us many opportunities to do that. My I turn to corporation? I understand that Government is trying very hard to have better arrangements with EU countries and we have had numerous discussions I believe with friends.

It is a little bit concerning that we see on the television or we here report on television of the French police not having the power to deal with the votes just when offshore and I believe the Government are going to deal with that and I think it is essential that we have better agreements with all these companies, we can't defeat the smugglers and traffickers unless they are based on firm and good cooperation. We do have action plans in Germany think we need to do a little bit more and maybe the Minister can confirm that we are hopeful before too long with the French and I welcome the government's firm commitment to the European on rights.

Let me turn a bit to say I think they matter. I think on several occasions it seems to me that they would not be there unless there was no other way. Some of them have good reasons for wanting to come to the country, such as family reunion. It is notable that in the Ukrainian program the fact is that in all our time, only five or six Ukrainians actually came across on the channel. They were persuaded that there are other ways of getting to safety and they made of getting to safety and they made use of them.

I am concerned about immigration retention and I hope we can look in detail at the proposals for new detention powers and what safeguards there are for people who are being held in detention for not because they have any criminal offences. I also concerned about the Home Secretary's powers in the curfew requirements on anyone they believe to end or remain in the UK. I am confident that the present Home Secretary would use those powers properly and decently and responsibly. Of course, it may be that the Home Secretary is changed from time to time and we have to have powers given powers which supplement them in the humanitarian supplement them in the humanitarian About 18 months ago I visited Calais and I met children and people trying to get the UK.

Some from Sudan said, we can't afford to pay for traffic. The only way we can get to the UK is if the trafficker who says, used in the boat over and you will get a free two. That of course means the committing a criminal offence in the country so it's a way sadly of making victims of people who are going to be punished, so think we have to be careful about the ways in which we use clonal law in this way.

I would like to see the traffickers I would like to see the traffickers got rid of. And there is dangerous trade disappear. -- Their miserable dangerous trade disappear. I think the bill should given opportunity for children who are outside the UK able to join families here. We had this legislation before but it disappeared. I do hope that the Minister will be able to indicate what assessment the government has made of the white paper proposals. Come particularly if the language requirements and financial requirements are too onerous for people who haven't got the money.

I hope the Minister can respond but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would the Minister well and I thank him again for his willingness to be so open and discuss these issues both here and of course outside. It's always a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord dubs and I have visited Calais and I totally agree visited Calais and I totally agree that no one would live there if they had a choice. And clearly those people are desperate and one can
19:18
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
people are desperate and one can understand perhaps that they take this protrude. And speaking for the noble Lord Lord Harper so I can't tell him what wonderful fooji has just made but I'm sure it will be excellent. I listened to the opening speeches, with something close to despair because I sort of get the sense that the Labour government wants to do something right but I think they have missed opportunities here and of course the opposition had 14 years to put this right and what we actually saw was, 14 years of Draconian rules and legislation that focused on public attention, and stopping the boats, but at the same time it allowed a huge abuse of the system with billionaires in private jets siphoning off taxpayers' money during austerity and the COVID crisis.

We had 14 years of a hostile environment. And 14 years of Draconian rules. And what did we actually get out of it? Rwanda was the most ridiculous threat and I'm delighted that that has now gone. Certainly in those 14 years of criminal gangs gangs got richer, the people who were letting out the hotels to refugees who were also getting richer, but of course the number of people arriving by small boats, has kept on climbing. Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative government, companies made a combined profit of 395 million since 2019 and that's grown because the government deliberately allowed a backlog in asylum claims, as part of its failed policy of deterrence.

And again of course home refugee barge was another failed deterrent. With the taxpayer picking up the bill for things like the high-cost docking fees at Portland Port. So in fact the last government tried deterrence, and they didn't work. It led to much higher bills for taxpayers but not to any real advantage. Refugees don't want to live on ships, they don't want to live in hotels. They actually want to become citizens and build new lives for themselves. In the same way that previous ways of immigrants did exactly that.

And whether you are descended from the Huguenot's, or German Jews, or Ugandan Asians, or rather families that have fled persecution, and for, to make a good life here for hundreds of years, the vast majority want to contribute to society. Grateful to be taken in. And allowed to live without danger. Most of today's producers want to and living, not rely on handouts but our government will not let them. Most want to contribute and benefit the economy but the government makes them a problem, instead of part of the solution.

The problem is not the refugees, it's the government failed attempts to deter them which has not worked. And has made things much worse and created bigger problems. I know Labour want to sort out the huge delays in processing asylum claims and to cut down on the use of hotels but it is keeping most of the Draconian rules passed by the previous government, clueless government it says in my notes, so sorry, past clueless government. So why is this Labour government retaining provisions for legal migration act of 2023 and that Nationality and Borders Act pretty 22, that when in opposition it actually condemned as immoral and destructive of human rights commitments.

They even voted alongside the Greens and the Lib Dems to defeat the past government, 19 times, on those Draconian rules that they regarded as unacceptable. So my big question is, why has His Majesty's Government failed to make any provision for safe routes to this country for people seeking asylum? Including people with close family and other connections here. The government is expecting us to pass a law that says if you arrived here via small boat, or in the baccalaureate, were not regarded as a person of good character and therefore ineligible to settle.

But because there are no additional safe routes set up, the only way you can be a person of good character according to Labour is not to arrive here at all. These are not the actions of a government that treats vulnerable people with fairness and decency" honestly I think it's not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government that deserves to be in power. It's a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady. She started off her speech so well with her kind remarks about a speech that I hadn't yet about a speech that I hadn't yet given. And when I listen to the rest of her speech I fear this is one subject on which she and I are subject on which she and I are destined not to agree. I fear. It's destined not to agree. I fear. It's a great privilege to be a member of this House and have the opportunity this House and have the opportunity to continue in public service.

And I should start by thanking Black Rod should start by thanking Black Rod and her team, the doorkeepers, the clerks, the Lord Speaker's team, who clerks, the Lord Speaker's team, who all made me very welcome from before all made me very welcome from before my deduction and subsequently and also to the catering team who looked after my guests so very well. I should also thank my noble friends who supported my introduction, the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham, and Lord Taylor of Holbeach as well as my noble friend the noble viscount Lord Younger of Leckie, whether he thinks this is an honour or not he has been assigned as my mental to keep out of trouble.

Noble Lords will know that although I served at the, in the other place for 19 years, I'm very well aware from my previous experience that this House is very different and in a previous job, I fear this is the time I have to make a confession. In the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats as a matter of great principle insisted that the coalition government tried to reform your Lordship's House. And I was lucky junior minister tasked with preparing a bill to elect this House.

Liberals will be well aware of the fact that that was kind by my then colleagues in the House of
19:25
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
commons -- a kibosh. And that Bill made no further progress. Since I made no further progress. Since I have been here, I am very pleased to see so many of those Liberal Democrats that I work closely with Democrats that I work closely with the coalition government have felt able to serve in this House for many able to serve in this House for many years, and I hope to see many years into the future. So there's hope for into the future.

So there's hope for us all. After the coalition government we had the election 2015 government we had the election 2015 in which we got our first majority in which we got our first majority for 23 years. And my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton asked me to be the government Chief asked me to be the government Chief Whip. And I should say, I hope my Lords will indulge me, I should say and put on record tribute to the late Sir Roy Stone who was my principal private secretary as government Chief Whip and served in that because -- served in that capacity for over two decades under finer and wiser public servant you couldn't wish to find.

And all those who came across him professionally will miss him, but the biggest loss will be felt by his family, his wife, Dawn, and his children Hannah and Elliott and a tribute was paid in the other place and I wish to put mine on the record in your Lordship's House. When I was government Chief Whip I worked closely with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach who was the government Chief Whip here and he made very clear to me that whipping in your Lordship's House is a much subtler plight and it is perhaps at the other end of the tilting, who don't have the same tools, actual don't have the same tools, actual disposal.

-- Your disposal. I hadn't realised quite how different it was until I sat in an online first few questions of Oral Questions and I marvelled at the magical ability of the noble Lord suffix of candy's pen which is able to select who is able to speak when there is a clash and I have to say I felt a level of envy when I did not have that power when I was the government Chief Whip the other end of the building. I suspect his pen is authoritative because noble Lords think the exercises it with a certain amount of fairness and deliciousness and all I can say is I hope that level of fairness extends perhaps especially to those of us who have been Chief Whip so that we get a fair crack of the whip.

Turning to the subject matter at hand, I have some experience in this. I served as immigration minister when my noble friend Lady May was a Home Secretary. And the noble Lord the Minister shadowed our home affairs team for a number of years. I have to say, a couple of weeks ago he referred in this House to the fact he said, Labour had always had a very robust policy on migration and I have to say both my noble friend and myself were a little surprised.

We haven't spotted that enormous amount of support when he was in opposition. And I hope it's always nice to see a CNET -- a it's always nice to see a CNET -- a it's always nice to see a CNET -- a When I was minister we tried When I was minister we tried to When I was minister we tried to put in tough measures but talk moderately and reasonably about the danger of doing the opposite, talking tough but I think not having sufficiently tough measures and I will draw out a couple stop first of all, we have seen illegal migration rise by 30% since the election and secondly, the government removed the deterrent that was in this bill, the run the scheme, without replacing it with an alternative stop there isn't time now to dwell on these matters but I will just give the noble Lord the Minister notice that I will be doing so during committee at report stage on this bill and I look forward to our clashes perhaps across your Lordship's House in due

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I warmly congratulate my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on a very deft friend Lord Harper on a very deft excellent and accomplished maiden speech and it's a pleasure to follow him. My noble friend has introduced
19:29
Lord Goodman of Wycombe Portrait Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative)
-
-
him. My noble friend has introduced this House, so in speaking so soon I hope to prove a point that if one is of sufficient authority one should not be afraid to get stuck in. My noble friend is of great seniority and knowledge, as a former minister for disabled people. As a former Minister for Constitutional affairs. He referred in his speech to some of his travails in that, as a former Secretary of State, transport and cabinet level and is a former Chief Whip where he always conducted himself with the discussion that we associate with those who have held that office.

Above all he is a former Minister for, under the leadership of my noble friend Baroness May who is in her place so he knows how the nuts and bolts of the system work. And I look forward to the Minister responding to what he said. I congratulate him once again on his maiden speech and we look forward to hearing for him many However, today I want to follow a slightly different path because this speech was focused on what the bill will seek to do.

I want to address, rather, whether in fact it is capable of doing it. I want to ask at the very start how much do we really know about migration into and really know about migration into and out of the country? How many migrants a day? Where do they come from? For how long are they entitled to be here? What are they doing when they are here is my how many of them stay and how many are moved? And, finally, are they making a contribution to the economy or RDA cost to the taxpayer? I ask him in the wake of data uncovered by my Commons colleague who has discovered that benefit claims by households with at least one foreign national have doubled in the last three years.

Now, finding answers is made easier by the absence of systemic charge and the asymmetry and exit checks we rely on advanced passenger information with carriers, selective Border Force checks and later, council tax information, DVLA data, NHS records and so on. One entry checks, the bedrock of the system, international passenger survey was designed to monitor them, not migration, and the databases used by different departments to record migration often define it differently. Furthermore, published ONS statistics only breakdown migration data into EU and non-EU, and British categories, not specific nationalities, and coming to the country on a visa to see family or for tourism, for example, is excluded by default on a temporary work visa, so I ask what the bill would do in its sharing of information provisions of depart one, or else on exit to increase the number of exit checks for standard the provision, and on entry ensure the provision, and on entry ensure that the data used by Governments uses the same definition of migrant when talking to each other.

Additionally, but the bill will do, if anything, to bring down migration data into specific nationalities, so that we can find ancestor some of the questions. Furthermore, what impact the bill will have, if any, on the interdepartmental taskforces on migration statistics set up long ago into thousand and six, to improve the quality, adherence, and accessibility of migration statistics. Returning those from temporary work visas, how many, roughly 2.2, how many, roughly 2.2 million people that arrived last year and visitor visas and the 70,000 people that arrived on temporary work visas that have stayed.

Is it correct that 92,000 visa nationals across these types and up to 250,000 non-visa nationals may not depart on time? And is it also correct that 1,000 visa national over stairs of these 92,000 and 500 of these 250,000 are removed each yeah. Looking at these types more closely, is it also correct that as many 15,000 non-visa holders may overstay annually, that as few as 1,000 of these could stay and as many S5 thousand visa holders may overstay annually, in this case 500 each yeah.

That as many are 30,000 asylum seekers may become unauthorised annually and remain in the UK after their appeals are exhausted and that as few as 5,000 of these arriving each year and as many 900 into the UK regularly each year without seeking asylum and that as you as 15 sure, regardless of whether these totals are accurate or not, what targets does the Government have to increase the number of range removals for future yes, if any? And, my Lord, I do not expect the Minister to answer this barrage of questions at the Dispatch Box today when he replies to this debate, but it is vital, both for the purposes of planning for the future, and maintaining confidence in the system, that we get information.

Will the bill enable us to craft more selective and efficient immigration systems? That should be a key test for the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. From this site, please may I add

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From this site, please may I add my congratulations to the Noble Lord Harper? Whether or not he always Harper? Whether or not he always agrees with the Baroness Jones, I agrees with the Baroness Jones, I hope he will find this House capable of always disagreeing well. It is not so much a declaration of interest as a description of interest as a description of context. As you say, I and the daughter of the late and lovely 1950s Commonwealth migrants to this country, and human rights lawyer of just turned 30 years.

The avoidance of doubt and at possible risk of confounding some potential expectations, I accept this bill expectations, I accept this bill underlining premises of bodice and immigration control. A democratic political community is, of course, defined by its borders, as well as its values and laws. It has a prerogative to assess and balance its social, economic, and cultural needs. Including some desire for reciprocal international work, study, trade, and tourism on the part of its own citizens, so as a matter of logic and international law, it retains considerable discretion on the question of how many and what kind of visas to grant to non-national seeking to enter its territory for various purposes.

This should be exercised, I would suggest, with considerable care, given the often competing interests of different economic actors in particular. Some employers, and even, dare I said, Government departments, may have a strong instinct towards importing large amounts of skilled and even unskilled workers. This may be laudable, and at times even vital to fuel innovation or fuel gaps in services from the labour market. Less so if it is designed to suppress wages below what is fair or even sustainable for a living.

Since World War II, however, there is rightly, in my view, far less discretion about how to treat a much smaller number of people for whom travel comes not from preference but persecution. Let's please always remember that we have a refugee clause in the European and so on as a direct result of some of the worst atrocities of the last century, and the plight of those who were denied safe passage to and asylum in countries such as ours at that time.

The 1951 refugee Convention in particular recites the principles of non-reform sending or those to their peril, non-penalisation, not punishing them, the desperate and even clandestinely means of their escape, and nondiscrimination against them. All three of those
19:40
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
principles were violated by legislation of recent years. In particular, Nationality and Borders particular, Nationality and Borders Act, Illegal Migration Act, and the Act, Illegal Migration Act, and the legislative lie that is the safety of Rwanda act. The Government is to be commended for seeking to reveal so much of that toxic legacy. However, I am sure we will explore, at committee, any number of respects, how that repeal does not go far enough to achieve either the go far enough to achieve either the legality or simplicity that I hope legality or simplicity that I hope most of us will want to see.

But before even that legislation came into politics, for which our leaders into politics, for which our leaders are just as responsible, in my opinion, grand political swindle was perpetrated on the British electorate in recent years. Withstanding Brexit slogans about controlling borders, large numbers of international workers were consciously invited into the UK whilst a fraction of those numbers asylum seekers mostly genuine refugees and often from sites of Britain's previous overseas military adventures were demonised beyond recognition.

That is dishonest, dangerous, and, frankly, immoral. So, as we examine both abroad brushstrokes and drafting of this bill I hope we can work with care and precision to distinguish between immigration control and refugee protection. I accept the latter is a responsibility we share with other territories which must be discharged as my Noble Friend has said must be discharged in wider collaboration, including to avoid desperate people taking perilous journeys wherever possible. But it is one thing to criminal traffickers and smugglers and another to dehumanise and detain their desperate attempts who are not and have never been illegal, let alone criminal.

Because in life and in politics just as much as legislation, words matter. They have consequences beyond the next headline. I look at the infamous Rivers of blood speech, if you months later my parents were violently attacked by violent thugs trying to take their baby from her pram in a London park. That may be too long ago for the bright young draft political speeches to remember, but certainly not for your Lordships house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for the introduction and I also want to thank the many organisations who thank the many organisations who have sent us briefings. And I want to congratulate Lord Harper on his to congratulate Lord Harper on his Maiden speech and I just want to say that from that Lib Dem ventures, despite the fact we are here, we despite the fact we are here, we still would like to see reform of your Lordships house. I support everything said by my Noble Friend earlier and will try not to cover those words.

It is a pleasure with Lady Chakrabarti who spoke with Lady Chakrabarti who spoke with great power. In some ways, this bill is disappointing. The Government is right to appeal the Safety of Rwanda right to appeal the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. Firstly, we always said in a position that Rwanda is not safe and the cost where one person deported must still be an embarrassment to those on conservative benches. Something, perhaps, that the whole of the
19:44
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
illegal Immigration Act should also go the same way. That was yet another unworkable migration station designed for newspaper headlines, most of it not to commence. Earlier, most of it not to commence. Earlier, Lord Davies pointed that more Commons research on migration as a Commons research on migration as a whole, he failed to mention that in further questions than most of those further questions than most of those polls that people are asked whether they would like to see more vacancies remaining in social care, vacancies remaining in social care, in nurses in our hospitals.

They tend to say no, and that is partly because people get confused between because people get confused between the migration that we would describe the migration that we would describe as regular and asylum seekers and that that is irregular. And we need that that is irregular. And we need that clarity of migration, particularly about the distinction of those seeking asylum or coming here for those needs. Another vast majority of migrants arrive here illegally, and yet the public spin has been and continues to be to model the regular with it.

And I do not think anyone has spoken yet about student migration numbers. We know they form part of the OECD data which is why we have that that there is nothing to stop the Government making sure people understand that international students are good for universities. Good for their economies locally, and nationally. And good for the future of groundbreaking science and research in technology. A number of noble Lords have, over the last 10 years, spoken regularly about the status and plight of children in the many migration ills.

This bill, sadly, does not remove the concerns that some of us still have. The last Government set up the national age assessment Board using so-called visual assessment methods and scientific biological efforts which, by the way, qualified doctors refuse to use. In the passage of the Illegal Migration Act, that then Government cited that other European countries were using scientific assessment techniques ignoring the rights that some made assessment was also given the legal support to protect them which was not available in this country.

In fact, since last year, a number of European countries have now stopped using this technique because it is unreliable and has resulted in children being put into adult accommodation with no facilities for them. This is in breach of the UN Convention on the rights of the child as well as a breach of the UN Convention on the rights of refugees and I do hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that this will be viewed and some of us may even be viewed and some of us may even be We need change because of those errors but there's a further issue about how to safeguard children who are assumed to be adults and are then charged under the bill with an offence of illegally entering the country, or any of the other offences cited.

A child refugee taken as an adult is automatically treated as an adult and criminal proceedings. We do not do that for children in our domestic criminal justice system, for a very good reason. So can the Minister say how these ages pleaded children facing criminal proceedings will be protected? Along with other noble Lords and concerned that this government proposals especially the new financial burdens on asylum seekers will limit and reduce the number of refugee families to travel safely to the UK to reunite with a family member.

For children, this is particularly traumatic. Clauses 34 to 35 have sensible provisions on flexibility in taking biometric information and I think we remember the success of, during evacuation of Afghanistan, how the British Government made changes quickly. Government made changes quickly. About biometrics, that it could be possible for asylum seekers, especially women and children to achieve, given the example of Afghanistan, they might have to travel over a border into Iran to try and get to British consulate to get the biometric data sorted and then get back to their, back to Afghanistan where they wanted to leave.

We will be raising this committee as we are concerned this is a problem, the government's attention is a good one, to how it will work in practice. My noble friend Lord German and another place my honourable friend Lisa Smart have raised the important issue of those seeking asylum being allowed to work after more than three months and free importantly to pay their way in this country. On the plus side for asylum seekers the right to work will be giving them the chance to use their skills, restore the confidence and morale as they build new lives.

These people will also help our economy, especially in shortage areas of skills. Earning wages will be contributing to taxes and national insurance and paying for their own food and accommodation and thus reducing bills. I look forward to the committee stage where I think there will be many different issues raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to rise in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. To follow characteristically comprehensive and persuasive opening speech from my noble friend the Minister, as well as the well-informed and frantic contribution by my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti at the Baroness Chakrabarti at the excellent speech of Baroness Lady excellent speech of Baroness Lady Brinton. It would obviously be impossible in six minutes to engage
19:49
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
impossible in six minutes to engage with any substantial amount of those issues which have been alluded to or discussed, everything that has been said thus far in today's proceedings which have been wide-ranging and reflective of the broader debate on these questions. So mindful of time and of the specifically previously contributions I restrict myself to 1 of two observations about provisions in the bill as well as the broader challenges they seek to engage. Given in nature the tone of other contributions I don't intend to belabour the point about the inheritance noble friend, the Minister and the government will bequeath but it is worth emphasising the measures we are debating today are necessitated by 14 years of largely ineffectual, largely ineffectual policy with occasional performative harshness here and there in that period.

I will depart from my script here, and to congratulate the noble Lord Lord Harper on his excellent maiden speech and I will look forward to debating with him and hearing him debate in future. I welcome the commitment in the bill to cross agency working under the age of the new security commander. It's unquestionably true that previous efforts to reduce legal arrival and is hamstrung by a lack of ordination and the tendency to work in silos. But under provisions in the bill, the authorities in the activities must only have regard for the strategic priorities and document produced by the commander.

And thinking of the strength of provisions, I read the second reading proceedings in the other place and while picking my way through the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, I realised that I find myself responsive to one but only one element of the remarks as he suggested something supported by briefing from the Law Society of Scotland which other noble Lords may have received that the title Border Security Commander is something of a misnomer given that these provisions, presuppose a system based on cooperation rather than compliance.

In coming to the decision, that the commander and partner authorities should have regard for rather than complying with the priorities in the strategic document. Clause 37 repealing the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda Act entirety of the Safety of Rwanda Act is of course entirely welcome. I cannot help but be struck by criticism levelled at the government by the benches opposite in this context. We have been told a number of occasions that we are removing a deterrent that could have a transformational effect on the inflow of illegal migration but in order to take this seriously which frankly I don't, have to accept that having finally found a silver bullet for a problem that has bedevilled this country for years, the previous government did not discharge it.

Or receive consequent wave of acclamation from a grateful nation by calling a general election before the first flight had taken off. This repeal on -- only confirms that we know, the scheme was performative rather than substantive in consumption and intent. I should also mention those voices who want the UK to disregard element of international law to ensure take measures to discourage illegal migration. Apart from comments already made, although this is a national problem it can only be solved with international cooperation.

The new agreements this government has reached with Germany, Iraq, and the G-7 are testament to this. Displaying a disregard for international law before asking for cooperation with international partners to say the least represent a somewhat exotic approach. The wider point of the international picture, Kamal's the friend the Minister about the intention... Noble Lords will be a worse section 59 makes any asylum of human rights claim by a national... In exceptional circumstances. I know that the powers have not been commenced but if thou not going to be used, why don't we use this bill to remove them altogether? To take but one example by the commencement of these powers causing a problem, Georgia was added to the safe states listed by the previous government and in an increasingly hostile environment for LGBTQ, given that the Home Office recently has granted asylum to people from Georgia, the purpose is questionable.

One final question, on February 10 Home Office published significant changes to the good character requirement guidance, the updated guidance stipulates asylum seekers who previously entered the UK illegally typically will be refused citizenship, regardless of the time elapsed since the entry. I accept that were safe and legal route 6 is taking the alternative of illicit entry is something intimately that can be taken as evidence of an absence of character. But if someone has a legitimate claim, and comes from a country with no safe legal route in place at the time they entered, is this really evidence of want of good character? We would be grateful for the reflections of my noble friend the Minister on that question.

the Minister on that question. , Also add to the welcome to my noble friend Lord Harper, it's good
19:56
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
to see him in this House, bolstering our side of the House although I our side of the House although I hope he is please for preferential treatment for four Chief Whip is treatment for four Chief Whip is ignored in the weight should be. -- ignored in the weight should be. -- In the weight should be. The bill could not have become at a more embarrassing day for the government, when recently 1194 immigrants came over, illegal immigrants, in 18 Denise onset state alone, the fifth Denise onset state alone, the fifth largest in a total day.

Britain has lost control of its borders. Not my lost control of its borders. Not my words, those are the words of the Secretary of State for Defence. And if it's true, that Britain has lost control of its borders, exam question is, does this bill give us control back over our borders or does it in some way.? We have discussed various matters, will have plenty in of time in committee to flush these out. Many of us have not been impressed by the work over the years of UK agency Border Force and it's always been my view that there is a huge cardroom of people in this country, who terminate the employment for too soon, I'm talking about senior military figures, senior civil servants in the foreign office and so forth, and let them go to time they have many years of useful life left.

And I would look at making part of their retirement a condiment to boost this part of government because I think they would bring expertise and it would great the improve the process of applications and so forth which we all want to see. I hope the government will give that some consideration. As the noble Lord Lord Brown, who has just spoken before me, said, this depends on cooperation and I wonder if the Minister could update us on our current relations with the French.

The course we are an island, we are dependent on the front. We have given them £476 million on a three- year deal, and seeing their behaviour over the last few days, I wonder if we are getting any value for money from that. What discussions can we have with a friend, how can we further incentivise? If you are in France you don't necessarily want to retain people, you want to see them go but why are we giving them money if they are not fulfilling their part of the deal? And what discussions about this legislation has he had with the Irish government in Dublin, seeing as that is another source of how people can come into the country through Northern Ireland.

There has been discussion about Rhondda. -- been discussion about Rhondda. -- About Rwanda. I understand why those who didn't want to proceed with it didn't. But what does it mean replaced by? The recent visit by the Prime Minister of Albania, he was met with a rebuff there. What other countries are we talking to? The Balkans? Under increasing Russian influence. DSIs has advised the government against the Balkans who are a tinderbox at the moment. Who else have we negotiated with? What is the expectation we will get a deal, what is the timeline and the full-back if we don't get a deal with any third country? This bill deals with the future but very little is going to happen immediately and it crucially ignores the population of this country.

I have all said, you can't have a grown-up conversation about how many people you want to live in this country, you want to come to this country unless you know how many people are living in this country and we don't and this bill does nothing to address that. It talks about guaranteeing the security of our borders, it says nothing about guaranteeing the security of the country within its borders. Can the government guarantee those who have come here over the years illegally wish the country well and do not present a credible threat at times? It brings me to my conclusion which I shall be raising at committee, and follow on from the noble Lord Lord Blunkett said, about the instruction of biometric ID cards.

This moves towards that. The noble Lord the Minister is falling into the trap, because he's going to raise again the fact that I was in a governor government against the act to get rid of it, I have gone to the library to check and I was rather hoping I wasn't here but of course he will appreciate ministerial collective responsibility and equally one is allowed to change one's mind over 15 years. There's been a huge change in circumstances, a huge change in the occurrence of I think really it is staring us in the face, if we had a good biometric ID system then we could work out who is in this country first and foremost before we then decide how many more people may want to come and I believe that is something that we should debate better.

This is a contentious subject, but by doing nothing about it or not doing enough about it we are playing into the hands of parties like reform and the Government are understandably nervous about the reform making the northern seas in particular and I would just say gently that everybody in this House the less we do about this the more players to perform and I do believe there is a gap between what people expect from the Government in terms of immigration and what politicians are delivering.

The wide other gap, the more it is allowed to exist, the more it will cater to those on the extremes which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is something I believe that we would all wish to avoid. I would also like to start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would also like to start by congratulating Noble Lord on an excellent maiden speech and to excellent maiden speech and to welcome everyone. I broadly welcomed this bill and I believe that many of this bill and I believe that many of the important measures it contains will assist in the fight against organised immigration crime. And organised immigration crime. And they better because this scourge is they better because this scourge is a growing threat to our society and to the credibility of our democratic institutions and the same is true
20:02
20:03
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Portrait Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (Crossbench)
-
-
face and it is clear that mass migration on the scale we are now seeing Andy organised crime gangs seeing Andy organised crime gangs that profit from it would drive us in a weakening faith in the institution bringing the rise of dangerous forms of political extremism, again, not just here, but across Europe also these conditions are fuelling nationalism and are fuelling nationalism and xenophobia about the democratic world. And the fewer democratic world. And the fewer democratic parties and Governments to deal with this question has played an important part in the installation by popular vote of authoritarian Government and not just our own continent but other continents also.

continent but other continents also. It should be clear to everyone that parties at the centre-right and centre-left that do not deal with centre-left that do not deal with this issue and all that flows from it, there is no shortage of parties it, there is no shortage of parties on extremes that would be happy to do so, and if they are ushered in by this discontent and migration they would do much else besides. The reason I believe this bill can only begin to touch the hymn of the problem is the policy challenge is order and deeper than a simple question of law-enforcement.

It is the context greeted by the national United Nations refugee Convention of 1951 and the protocol of 1967. The refugee Convention was created in the shadow of the Second World War and was generally understood to be in response to the horrors of that conflict, in particular to the barriers faced by Jewish people seeking to flee Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The 1967 protocol broadened its terms to include within its compass the entire world. Let me make just one point to illustrate the historical context of the refugee Convention in striking contrast to the world of today.

At the time of its enactment in 1951 it was considered that the .1 million refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees. In 2024, according to the UNHCR, there are no less than 122.6 million internally displaced persons around the world, and no less than 43.7 million refugees. In addition, in the 74 years since the adoption of the invention the world has become smaller, knowledge of conditions in developed countries more broadly available travel over distance across seas and whole continents far easier.

In light of this I wouldn't other people seek lives and opportunities to escape for their families and violence and oppression? What could be more natural? And why wouldn't millions of people avail themselves of the services of organised criminal gangs missing a better future than some newly reachable country? It is in the light of these changes since 1951 that I believe the rubric of the refugee convention must be considered. It says that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution in place of those entitled under the convention to asylum when arriving a contracting state and if this is a characterisation that applies to literally tens of millions of people worldwide then may plausibly be claimed by tens of millions more.

So, what are we to do? It is no answer just to shrug, again we had to be realistic. Because at some stage we are going to have to deal with this and my overview is that we may have to revisit the refugee convention to make it fit for the modern world, to create an architecture that allows, for example, for the application of quotas between nations, the admission, of course, of those previously at risk so that when they fulfil the humanitarian function without damaging, social and political cohesion.

Discussions are already taking place across Europe but how arrangements under the European Convention on Human Rights may be ordered to allow countries more effectively to define and regulate their borders. As a strong supporter of the humour in Convention and the Strasbourg court I urged the Government enthusiastic participation in these discussions. As long ago as 2016 the distinguished Columbia University epistemic professor wrote in his fine book the once and future liberal, the parties at the centre left to espouse identity politics to nationalise people by race, privilege, sex and gender, building great hierarchies of polarisation would never be able to create winning electoral coalitions across socio-economic divides.

Indeed, such an obviously misguided solipsistic ideology would only succeed in alienating supporters and ageing populism and the result would be social division and strengthening of little reaction. Although the professor once told me that their response was to label him a white supremacist, today a week and confused response to an unprecedented surgeon romps the same danger and this danger is particularly acute to parties at the centre left. We are a maximum of four years away to the next general election.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also very much enjoy my Noble Friend Lord Harper who showed us a Friend Lord Harper who showed us a glimpse of steel heavily disguised by the deftness of his touch and I think we are all looking forward think we are all looking forward very much to hearing more from him including on this bill when he can
20:07
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
including on this bill when he can withdraw. My overriding impression of the debate this afternoon and this evening has been that there has been far more that unites us than divides us. In the full range of contributions perhaps the noble Baroness to my Noble Friend Lord Lillian and all in between bookmarks of this excellent debate, there is a general acceptance that it really is that legitimate expectation of those who we serve as parliamentarians that the Government must be able to defend and control our borders, and indeed in the Explanatory Notes that is described as a vital strategic asset, and indeed to remove those it really is as simple as that, and clearly despite our island geography we do not have security, successive Governments have failed in this regard and I think that we really should move on from ownership of historic policies or to follow the noble Lords in his contribution to the previous debate on sentencing, but to take some of that heat out of this to move towards common approaches towards a very complex problem in that objective, it really is a question of competence that the public is tired of failure and people look to Government not for explanations of how difficult this is but for solutions.

And if the legal and regulatory framework either domestically or internationally is the obstacle then in partnership with our European partners and with other nations we should seek to find proper humanitarian solutions which change the international regime and I listened with great interest to the previous speaker of the explanation of the imperative and unfair way. There is much that is admirable and it feels very technical. Some feels just a little presentational, talks of commanders without too much to demand have already been noted.

What does not contain it does not contain some of the ID card proposals from the Noble Lord and others talked about that has been very much greater technical and policy moves that are contained within the bill. I suspect that much of our debates at Committee stage will be about what is not in the bill more than what is in the bill and I would certainly welcome pragmatic and sensible measures, many of which I sensible measures, many of which I was surprised are not available.

And I would like to ask the Minister and they believe in the measures that are coming in the bill and there is a wealth in the situation no doubt the Government has undertaken detailed analysis on the projected efficacy of the combination of these initiatives and what are the targets for improvement? What are the KPIs for security? What does success look like? But in order to discuss the solution one first has to understand the problem. People are travelling through numerous European safe countries for making extremely hazardous trips across the channel to access the UK.

Could I ask the Minister to respond, in detail, if he does not time we will see if perhaps he would be kind enough to write it me to the factors of intelligence that the Governments has their believe drive people to risk their lives and those of their children and families to come to the UK rather than to stay in another safe country like France in terms of how they are treated when they arrive, opportunity to remain in the UK and benefits and any other factors that he considers are relevant.

We really do need to have a proper understanding of that in order to work out what the solution is. The biggest issue is clearly the incentive that rewards those that come here through illicit means and until we can't make a statement backed up and supported by international law that if people come to the UK they would feel extremely prejudiced and their chances of staying in the country then we would undoubtedly fail and much has been made of the Australian example of the deterrent measures, I made a statement from Justin Jones as maritime command in a public video 2022, Australia recently as all the reduction forces change, no one who attempts to travel would be allowed to settle here, no matter who you are, where you are from.

The only weight to Australia is if you have zero chance of legal migration. That is an interesting statement. The emphasis is on politicians to look at the international regulatory settlement to come up with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

solution. I declare the support that I received and start by warmly received and start by warmly welcoming the repeal of the Safety
20:14
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
welcoming the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and cross repeal of the Illegal Migration Act. But I share the disappointment expressed by many organisations who I am grateful for their briefings that the bill does not go further in repealing the whole of the latter and the Nationality and Borders Act. The Law Society, for instance, describes the latter as a detrimental piece of legislation that will become a full directive in many places. In my Noble Friend the Minister explain why the bill leaves in place a number of provisions of both of these bills that we roundly condemned at the time? In particular, wire we retaining particular, wire we retaining section 12 of the IMA that leaves in place the risk of arbitrary detention, asylum seekers, refugees, and persons section 59 which in the claims from countries deemed safe ignores again to quote the UNHCR, the requirement for an individualised assessment claim, thereby giving rise to a risk of refuelling.

The refugee and migrant claims argue that children and young people are particularly at risk of section 59 denying them proper consideration for their vulnerabilities. They are MCC with support from the Association of social workers is also critical of the retention of the age assessment provisions of the NBA that calls for their appeal. They are MCC points out that neither the national age assessment Board, nor the development of so-called scientific age assessment methods, which is already noted, have been widely criticised as tackling the key problem which is children being wrongly treated as adults on wrongly treated as adults on I was alarmed to read of plans to explore scientific and technological methods to ensure adults are not wrongly identified as children.

Were the of Alice through the looking glass. I am grateful to my noble friend for the constructive meeting we had with members of the RMC see recently to discuss age assessment and he won't be surprised to hear my mentor was an issue. Some of those children is identified as adults could be prosecuted under the new criminal offences and end up spending months in adult prisons. Concerns have been raised more widely by a number of organisations including the Law Society and the UNHCR about these provisions which in their breath and vagueness risk criminalising vulnerable adults and children who are risking their lives in search of safety.

This exposes the gaping how in the bill which is already noted is the absence of any provision to expand safe routes. The safer its coalition are recognising the need to tackle the exploitation of unsafe routes by smuggling gangs which is the Bill's main focus argues that it is missing a golden opportunity to address why people are taking these dangerous journeys. I can't really understand why the government appears to be so death the widespread calls for improving safe routes children and others, including from the APG for refugees of which I am a member, instead the immigration white paper includes plans which will weaken the family reunion route.

The white paper also includes proposals to double the length of time most people will need to wait before they can apply for settlement. This isn't the place to argue against this damaging proposal but it would be remiss of me not to mention it even the large number of emails I am receiving from those already on the five year route to remain. In the absence of clarification as to whether the new rule will apply to those already here, the emails express both acute distress and a sense of betrayal and loss of trust in the UK's integrity and consistency, as already asked, could my noble friend at the very least clarify whether they will indeed now have to work here for 10 years before being able to apply for settlement, having come here in good faith on the assumption of five years.

Finally, the welcome appeal in the bill of section 31 to 35 of the IMA which rendered refugees who had entered the country by regular means ineligible for British citizenship has now been undermined by the plight of hand that achieves the same outcome through changes to their nationality of good character requirement guidance. Having welcomed the repeal as a positive step, that we had nice is the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion, the UNHCR expresses concern that new guidance may result in breaches of article 31 of the Refugee Convention which it argues is central to the conventions object and purposes.

It recommends the guidance be revisited to ensure that it is applied in a manner consistent with the U.K.'s international obligations. As the Law Society who echoed the article 31 point note this is a significant change in policy which has been made with no consultation and therefore no scrutiny. In conclusion, while I repeat my welcome of the repeal of any of the damaging provisions made by the previous government, I wish I could welcome this bill unequivocally. As the daughter of a refugee in agreement I welcome the fact that I live in Ireland, not of strangers but of diverse route that has enriched our lives.

We have responsibility to them and to those who seek to come to our country in future to ensure we build a fair and inclusive immigration and asylum stroke refugee system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for introducing succinctly the bill and I would like
20:20
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
succinctly the bill and I would like to welcome my noble friend Lord Harper who is not in his place, and wish him very well in this House. The bill seems to have two aims and seems to be speaking to 2 different audiences. One of the aims is to control the borders by tackling the criminal gangs who ferry migrants to the shore of this country. And in number of new clauses will introduce the new borders security command, under 12, to tackle the gangs, and there will be clauses 13 to 18, and 21 to 23, with new powers and datasharing powers.

That part of the bill, the first part, aims to address the very wide concern in this country about levels of immigration both legal and illegal or irregular which this bill is physically addressing. But it also aims to tackle the asylum and immigration system, to strengthen confidence in the border system, and to do that, to repeal certain parts of Conservative deflation. This part of the bill is addressed to people of the bill is addressed to people on the left who see the streamlining and processing of the asylum system is paramount.

It is not a matter of tightening the rules and I welcome the Minister's outlining some of the more peripheral ways in which these will be strengthened in clauses 41, 43 and 45 for example. Not of reviewing the national agreement from the post-war, or World War II period for Europe, to protect people who are displaced by the war, by the defeat of Germany and by the new arrangements with the Soviet Union to give it some sphere of influence of eastern Europe.

And we have heard from the noble Lord and the crossbenches, I'm sorry, I have got Lord McDonald of River Leven, we were speaking about 2.1 2.1 million people of European origin displaced may be in Europe. However, now we are looking at a world glibly people on the move. And the figure now mentioned by Lord McDonald as 400 million refugees. These are very, very significant numbers. And he rightly eluded to the Refugee Convention of the 1951 and some of the international framework of law which so many people like to be, -- like to reject, because it is totally unsuitable for today's global world with people on the move.

Millions. Therefore, I would like to concentrate on what kind of figures we are dealing with in this country alone, and we are looking at immigration and asylum. And I fear streamlining and processing the system is not enough to help reduce system is not enough to help reduce the overall numbers. In the year in which the new government came to which the new government came to power, there were 224,742 asylum cases in the system. In June 2024.

In this year, in March, for the year ending March 2025, around 50% of claims have been granted at an initial decision. Giving 45,000 people refugee protection according to Home Office figures. 40% of asylum claims were granted between January and March. This is a significantly higher rate now than we look at historically in the period from 21 to 2018 when the vote was 29%. And it was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than in 2022, sorry, and it includes almost all small boat immigrants who attend to be given -- who tend to be, the claims tend to be successful, 77% of the.

With such numbers and the Conservative government measures to deter, I'm very worried about the clauses 37 and 38 which are going to repeal those parts of the bill which acted as a deterrent. The figures speak for themselves. In 2023, the numbers were... Forgive me, I'm going to have to just look at them. going to have to just look at them. They are astonishing. In 2023, the numbers of people arriving fell to 36,699 which was a figure substantially lower than the 54,700 and lower than the 54,702 of this year.

And I can't think it's right to say that the measures which the Conservative government introduced the Rwanda scheme, and the Immigration Act, Illegal Migration Act 2023 did not serve as a deterrent. I think the numbers do speak, Rwanda, Agri is too late but certainly the immigration act -- I agree is too late. I and therefore, while welcome those parts of the bill which aim to strengthen the borders and strengthen control of the borders, and bring in offences, I rather fear that they will not be strong enough to deter illegal migrations.

And I fear that trying to speak to 2 different audiences, we will end up with policing neither, neither those who want a more streamlined immigration system which will allow more asylum and applications and more claims to be granted. And those in the country who by and large wanted immigration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- who by and large wanted illegal immigration drastically cut. Many have raised concerns about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many have raised concerns about this bill, from the impact it may have on the victims of human trafficking and undermine the work trafficking and undermine the work done and progress made in that area, much of it led by my noble friend much of it led by my noble friend Lady may, to the concerns that may, Lady may, to the concerns that may, lies asylum seekers rather that those who seek to exploit them. The expansion of counterterrorism
20:28
Baroness Warsi Portrait Baroness Warsi (Non-affiliated)
-
-
expansion of counterterrorism measures and the lack of an attempt to deal with the vexed issue of no safe routes. For those fleeing persecution. Much of these I'm sure will be debated in detail during committee stage. But today I want to focus on how we debate this policy area, and the consequences of what we do in Parliament and in government, and its real impact on people's lives. I don't put forward an ontological forward -- and Instead often raising the temperature on this issue and then agitating further disappointed public.

In a former life I have represented both the Home Office and applicants in immigration proceedings stop I am however pragmatic enough to acknowledge, as I presume most in this House would, our demand for a constant supply of a labourforce over decades to underpin our economy. It's meant have tolerated the numbers. Like most now country I simply want a system that works, one that does not oversell and deliver, that ensures we meet our international obligations and is in line with our stated values.

Migration, the movement of people which both in the UK and around the world is overwhelmingly legal, has always existed. The movement of people between different geographical areas across boundaries during the years as seasons change, the movement within state boundaries from rural to urban areas, the movement in the past of large number of Europeans from the global to the Global South, the global East End elsewhere. From the mid-1800s to the First World War it is estimated that 20 million it is estimated that 20 million people migrated from the United Kingdom, over a period of 80 years nearly 50% of the British population moved travelling to parts of the British Empire colonising lands and establishing settled communities.

This was not unusual, the same pattern across most European nations, 48 million Indigenous Europeans left Europe to become permanent communities across the globe and now rightly call To To base To base our To base our arguments To base our arguments and To base our arguments and evidence, to focus on outcomes, to Telstra. On migration, to speak of numbers and talk about migration anyway that is inclusive of all men and women, we await to all of them to get this right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak on this Bill as somebody who spent much of my political life focusing on home
20:34
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
affairs. Including as a former Immigration Minister and a spokesperson in the European Parliament. I begin by welcoming the renewed focus on these vital matters. I would urge ministers to draw a clear and consistent distinction between Immigration and Asylum Act. They are two different issues, each requiring its own approach and solution. Our immigration policy must rules-based, fair to theirs who follow the system and rooted in the national interest, supporting the economy, public services and the social fabric of the country.

Please remember, immigration, as opposed to asylum, is in the hands of government. They set priorities and categories and numbers. Please do not be deceived by the term net migration, regardless of numbers entering the country, if more people leave, the figures come down. If you leave, they go up. Too many people leaving is surely not in our interest. Asylum must be firm but fair, we must honour international commitments and offer protection to those who flee from persecution. We must also be resolute in removing those whose claims have failed swiftly.

Humanely and without unnecessary delay. Justice must be seen to be done and public confidence depends on it. Immigration, when managed responsibly, a source of strength for society and long-term success requires more border controls, integration, communication and trust. That is why I would encourage the government to return responsibility to the community and race relations to the Home Office. So that it sits alongside immigration policy and support a better integration and acceptance of those admitted to the country.

The number of small boat arrivals rose by 22% in the year up to March 25, that is a sharp increase despite the success of the French authorities to determine. The public are right to expect action, but the loss of legal routes and facilities and UK representations around the globe has certainly not helped. More must be done to disrupt the criminal gangs, and the perilous journeys and secure our borders. Lasting solutions can only come through serious practical cooperation. Not schemes that involve sending asylum claimants thousands of miles away for processing, which are at best legally questionable, expensive and ineffective.

I note interest in creating overseas hubs as temporary locations, only for failed asylum seekers but not happen. This might be helpful but it should not replace the return of such people to their source countries. Applying pressure on the government of those who are reluctant to receive back and protect their citizens is an appropriate and at times necessary action. It has been done before with positive effect, acquiring asylum is a precious thing with clear criteria. Over the last few years, we seem to be extending properly those criteria, leading to greater numbers being granted asylum and I think is correct under the terms of the 1951 Convention on Refugees.

Although I fully appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord MacDonald, a short time ago, as to some changing circumstances since 1951, recently there have been signs of stricter enforcement and better understanding and interpretation of the rules, which is welcome. In that context, I welcome the UK-EU common understanding, in particular part six on irregular immigration, which highlights the importance of information sharing, something which I have championed. The previous government began developing a platform to improve data exchanges at the border.

That work must continue and accelerate and I urge ministers to prioritise and, crucially, pursue renewed cooperation with European partners to restore UK access to the Sheringham intending -- sharing and insulation system, it is the largest security sharing system in Europe. In 2019, the last year that the UK had access, it was checked by British police over 603 million times. That level of operational intelligence is essential to protecting our citizens and securing our borders. It's loss, with real- time access, is one of the many negatives of leaving the EU.

We have an opportunity to modernise our systems, act with purpose and rebuild trust. That means processing and removing failed asylum seekers in a timely manner, stopping dangerous crossings and working in a genuine partnership with allies. If we are serious about borders, we really must be serious about the tools and the corporation that makes that possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first, I would like to congratulate the government on its congratulate the government on its aim of repealing the Rwanda act, and aim of repealing the Rwanda act, and some of the modifications, both of which were despicable pieces of which were despicable pieces of legislation and contributed to the widespread negativity, supporting widespread negativity, supporting people escaping conflict and of people escaping conflict and of dangers. If we want a model for how to treat people fleeing from war zones, we have it in the way that we zones, we have it in the way that we supported Ukrainian nationals seeking refuge.

In the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. Ukrainians were able to pass the residence test to receive fast and residence test to receive fast and substantial help, including the temporary leave to remain, if they left because of the Russian invasion. They could work here, and apply for Universal Credit, if they did not have a job, it could not work or they were on low income. Ukrainian refugees were generally presented in a positive light by the media and in Parliament.

What we see here is the humanity that we should expect from a relatively wealthy country, giving support to people whose lives are in danger. We offer a safe space to live, where children can go to school, where parents can legitimately work and provide for legitimately work and provide for their families. To echo Lord hers comments about the terrible war taking place in Sudan, Sudan was of course effectively a British colony and the divisions it helps to create resulted in decades of war.

The UK is an obvious place for Sudanese refuge to turn to because of the colonial history and because English is one of the two national languages. In return, the UK recognises the terrible situation there and that there are genuine grounds for accepting claims for asylum. Have there been any special measures put in place to allow Sudanese to come to the UK? No. A hopeful asylum-seeker must first be able to arrive in the UK if they use the standard visitor's visa, they must apply three months before travel.

They cannot apply as an asylum-seeker in advance, even if they have family or support waiting for them. Instead, they have to find a route to the UK, and on arrival, expect an interrogation, to be fingerprinted and treated as a potential criminal. Can I ask the Minister, while the two cases treated so differently? Are there deserving and undeserving people fleeing war? For many years now, immigration has been treated as a criminal activity, I was shocked when I attended the Labour Party national policy forum, some 25 years ago, to find that immigration policy was included in the crime and Justice section.

No one could tell
20:44
Baroness Bryan of Partick Portrait Baroness Bryan of Partick (Labour)
-
-
me why that was the case. Unfortunately, this Bill is Unfortunately, this Bill is reinforcing the idea that people coming to this country are a threat coming to this country are a threat and danger. Rather than the part of centuries of movement of people around the world, describes it around the world, describes it eloquently by Baroness. Many of our eloquently by Baroness. Many of our predecessors came here, in that way. predecessors came here, in that way. I do accept the need for border controls but safe route must part of controls but safe route must part of those controls.

Currently, we are only paying lip service to helping even the most vulnerable, threatened groups and individuals. In our groups and individuals. In our attempt to keep people out and know them safe and legal routes to arrive in the UK, we have actually helped to create the space for criminals to take over immigration. The appeal forcing fruits is a recurring theme in many of the briefings provided by the NGOs and campaigners and in the speeches today. The safe Routes coalition briefing paper argues that " Safe route are well run and managed, they can be very effective and reduce dangerous journeys such as Channel crossings." This Bill can be strengthened to improve the role that safe routes can play in ensuring that the UK offers controlled and sustainable ways to support refugees fleeing the war and persecution.

Amnesty International points out one of the consequences of not having safe routes is that refugees will continue to endure severe hardship and trauma in the search for safety. Even when having family in the UK or other strong connections here. We must look closely at this Bill with a view to including provision for safe Routes, not only because this is a fair and humane, but also to stop the need for genuine asylum seekers having to deal with criminal gangs and put their lives in danger, to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access to what we believe is a human My Lords, I will be brief. These
20:46
Lord Green of Deddington Portrait Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will be brief. These matters are not... Indie, it is now 24 years since I co-founded 24 years since I co-founded migration watch, together the professor David Coleman, of Oxford University. So I listened with great interest to the administers summary, very clear summary of the government's proposals. Sadly, I have to say to him that they will not work. It will not bring the scale of net migration down to a level which is acceptable to the public.

Indeed, this bill merely scratches the surface of the massive problems that our country now faces as a result of the enormous increase in immigration over recent years. We now know that net migration was approaching one million in 2023 and was about 400,000 in 2024. These massive numbers are completely without precedent in our history and will have very serious consequences for public services such as health and education, as well as demand for housing. As indeed, Lord Lilley pointed out earlier today.

More importantly, these numbers also point to the prospect that within the foreseeable future, the white tissue will become a minority in their own country. -- White British. It is already the case that all of our pub chelation -- population increase is a result of immigration. Meanwhile, was the present white minority has been decreasing for many years, it could increase but there has been no sign of that. Immigrant birth rates vary sometimes is much higher.

The major factor by far is now net migration. Even if it is held at the current 430,000 a year, we can expect the white majority, the white British majority, to become a minority in the UK in about 30 years from now. About 30 years from now. Now, of course, that number 30 is crucial. It depends on what other numbers you take in your calculations. But this is a central and likely outcome if no serious measures are taken. The Prime Minister recently had the courage to put his toe into this delicate water.

When he spoke of the risk of our becoming a, "An island of strangers." He was right. And the public feel in their bones that he was right. We now need serious consideration of the policies required to put the brakes on this process. These include the political courage to set a clear target for net migration, backed up by specific measures. I regret to conclude that the Bill before us today will achieve virtually nothing of the kind now needed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to offer qualified support for the Bill. But I do so in the for the Bill. But I do so in the firm belief that unless we seize firm belief that unless we seize this moment to regain credible control over all forms of migration, we shall betray both the national interest and the public trust.
20:49
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
interest and the public trust. Regrettably, my own party failed to properly deal with the issue in government. And honour the pleasures made in general elections between 2010 and 2019 to lower immigration. -- On the pledges. And hence net migration massively increased in the last three parliaments. And we did nothing to address the pernicious misuse of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill does in Venice give Parliament a coherent framework. New powers for intelligence led interceptions, faster inadmissibility decisions and tougher criminal offences for those who facilitate a regular entry.

Legislation alone is not enough unless we confront the scale of the problem with unflinching candour. 764,000 was then net migration figure in 2022, which was the peak, figure in 2022, which was the peak, but even last year, 431,000 people, representing a city the size of Bristol, and yet we built only 218,000 Homes England last year. 81 % of those migrants were from outside Europe. Presenting major problems of integration and challenges in respect of shared identity, values, culture, history identity, values, culture, history and the way of life.

Only 14 % came to work whilst 149,000 were family dependents. Figures released over the weekend showed that over £900 million is claimed by foreign national households. One in six households each month in Universal Credit. That is barely 2 months worth of Winter Fuel Allowance. Mass uncontrolled migration is bad for the economy. It is astonishing that the economy. It is astonishing that per capita GDP at $49,464 in 2023 is less than it was in 2008. 17 years ago. No civilised country can absorb such numbers year after year without acute pressure on housing, healthcare and social cohesion, particularly in the very towns and cities that field least heard by liberal Metropolitan opinion formers, who of course well represented in your Lordships' House.

At the illegal end of the spectrum, the Channel crisis persists. More than 36,000 people around small boat in 2024, up 1/4 on 2023. And the death toll tragically reached 77, the worst year on record. On Saturday, as we had, over 1,200 people crossed the Channel. So much for smashing the gangs. Because behind every dinghy is an organised crime business model that mocks our sovereignty and imperils vulnerable lives. The key question is will the Bill be a real effective and significant deterrent for people traffickers? The government is pointless and performative repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act, whilst begging last month the support of the Albanian Prime Minister in vain for a resettlement hub, was entirely unnecessary and predictable and destroyed such a deterrent.

Meanwhile the fiscal costs mount inexorably. Hotel accommodation for failed asylum seekers and those in the ever lengthening backlog now drained £8 million every single day. Money that could have trained 260 nurses or built three primary schools each week. Labour promised to reduce the number of asylum seeker hotels that they have increased in number since July 2024. That said, the government does deserve some credit for establishing the Border Security Commander and their development on bilateral trade agreements. But it must be given teeth.

Real-time data sharing across MI5, the National Crime Agency and Border Force and an unflinching mandate to disrupt the smugglers logistics up steam, not nearly mop up on the beaches. It must address legal migration as well. Skilled worker and student roots, laudable in its intent have become porous. -- Routes. They are now... Whilst overseas students commended for their tuition fees import 150,000 dependents a year. It is not an immigration system it is an open invitation. Even the secretary of defence this week has said the government has lost control of our borders.

We need to insert as statutory annual cap gross immigration set by affirmative resolution of both Houses for work and study visas allocated by auction, to ensure they are allocated to the areas that need them both. A new system of surety for visa holders which ensure natural penalty if they do not leave the country when their visa expires. We should require the Migration Advisory Committee to publish full displacement away suppression effects, not just labour market shortages. We need to disapply section 3 of the Human Rights Act and article 8 ECHR where they would thwart deportation of serious criminals or those who have entered criminals or those who have entered clandestinely.

The Times editorial was quite right on Saturday to excoriate the Attorney-General is ill judged and intemperate comments on those questioning the workings of the ECHR and to point out that many European countries are seeking sincerely to reform the convention, to ejecta illegal immigrants and strengthen the asylum rules. -- To ejecta. I wonder why, if the Minister will answer the question the, UK has declined to support such an effort, for what reason? These measures are not Draconian. They are proportionate, democratic and entirely consistent with our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Properly interpreted, notwithstanding the fetishisation of international or by the noble Lord Kerr and others. This is a necessary start but without the amendments I have referenced, it will be neither sufficient nor credible. We have a brief window, perhaps the last in a generation, to restore balance immigration policy that is fair, lawful and above all, trusted by the British people. In conclusion, I therefore commend in principle the Bill but I did notice that I and other noble Lords will table amendments to deliver the affected border control and the sustainable legal migration regime that this country both expects and deserves.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak on this Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with the government's aim and the purpose of government's aim and the purpose of this Bill, which is primarily to stop people from crossing the Channel from France in dangerous Channel from France in dangerous boats. Since the loopholes exploited by the criminal gangs a few years ago, almost 100 men, women and children have tragically lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel. In Mediterranean English Channel. In Mediterranean Sea, thousands have perished over the years trying to reach...

These organised criminal gangs profit organised criminal gangs profit under desperation of honourable people and must be stopped by people and must be stopped by whatever means necessary. This is one of the most tragic aspect of our
20:57
Lord Sahota Portrait Lord Sahota (Labour)
-
-
one of the most tragic aspect of our times. People fleeing poor countries, seeking a better life for their families and escaping authoritarian and corrupt regimes. I speak as the son of an immigrant who in the 1940s left his country and moved from place to place before finally settling in the UK in 1957. I first... I know the first hand feeling of these refugees. I cannot help but feel empathy for them. This refugee crisis is not new.

Throughout history, thousands have fled their own country to escape education and mistreatment. It saddens me to say that some politicians in Europe have used the misfortune and desperation of these refugees to advance their own political careers. They have stirred up hatred and xenophobia to win votes, rather than showing understanding and compassion. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have used these unfortunate people as a political football instead of treating them with dignity and humanity.

However, as I have often said in your Lordships' House, UK remains one of the most tolerant, inclusive and welcoming countries in the world. I am proud that my father settled here and that his great-grandchildren, great- grandchildren are now part of the great British society. Returning to the substantive issue of this debate, while I support the core intent of this Bill, we must be mindful of unintended consequences. As your Lordships no, I'm not a solicitor. I usually leave such matters to your Lordships great legal mines.

However, here are some of my observations as a lay man and as a long-standing supporter of Amsden -- Amnesty International and a staunch believer in the European Convention on Human Rights. -- Great legal mines. I always place great value on human rights and well-being of the underdogs. I would therefore like to ask the noble Lord the Minister to clarify some of these points I will point out now. One of my concerns is that some of the new offences in this Bill would inadvertently criminalise the genuine asylum seekers and deter victims of the modern slavery coming forward.

Does this Bill comply with the UK's international obligation under the 1957 refugees Convention regarding the rights of the individual seeking asylum? Secondly, what consideration has been given to expanding safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as an alternative or complementary approach to the enforcement measures in this Bill? Thirdly, what provision are there to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are not inadvertently disqualified from protection or deterred from engaging with authority to two the new immigration offences or powers? Fourthly, does this Bill ensure robust judicial oversight of detention decisions and does it prevent the disproportionate detention of the individual seeking asylum? Finally, can the noble minister assure me that the sharing of the custom information HMRC and the sharing of the trailer registration information from the DVLA to catch organised immigration criminals will not result in a snooper's charter affecting the wider public? While we all want to stop the ruthless smuggler gangs and save lives, we must also uphold our proud tradition of compassion and human rights.

A just and human approach alongside firm ordered security is the only way forward. -- security is the only way forward. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like my noble friend, Baroness Brinton, I stand ready to vote to Brinton, I stand ready to vote to abolish myself. I was as disturbed as many others were by the Prime Minister's warning that without Minister's warning that without strong migration rules, we risk strong migration rules, we risk becoming an island of strangers. Of course, we need a well-managed system, but not only is that kind of system, but not only is that kind of inflammatory language alarming and unhelpful, neither recent political statements nor measures in the Bill statements nor measures in the Bill to anything to promote the integration that would seek to make integration that would seek to make newcomers well settled residents and I appreciated the speech of the I appreciated the speech of the noble Lady, Brian S4C.

Much alarm has been created by the heralding of has been created by the heralding of tougher requirements for obtaining both settlement and citizenship, as Baroness Lister described. I will never understand why, having allowed people to legally reside, any government thinks it is useful to make it harder for them to convert that into permanent settlement and then citizenship, which anchors their belonging here. I would love to say more about other parts of the Bill but I want to concentrate on the European aspect.

The common understanding which resulted from the UK make UK-EU summit pledged to reinforce cooperation on law enforcement, including three Europol. On analysis of threats, exchange of information and operational action. Whilst we cannot yet go back to the golden era of the agency for the decade, we can encourage maximum exploitation of these opportunities and I agree with Lord Coaker about seeking access. My benches will table some amendments to that end, about Europol, such as equipping the police forces to participate in Europol's and trafficking operations and established joint task forces are requiring the board's commander to meet the director.

I want to talk about clause 42, EU citizens, I do welcome the intention to try and
21:05
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
clear up some of the model caused by the weight the EU Settlement Scheme was devised and incremented, but I was devised and incremented, but I fear that further confusion might lie ahead. Even another Windrush, lie ahead. Even another Windrush, due to the reluctance to get us in the whole of the package of the past. The problem comes because clause 42 holds back from declaring clause 42 holds back from declaring that everyone given the settled status actually comes within the citizens write permissions of UK-EU citizens write permissions of UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement and the EEA and Swiss equivalents come such as being able to rely on the direct effect of those rights.

It only says that all those rights. It only says that all of those granted right to stay under the settlement scheme will be the settlement scheme will be treated as if they had such rights. The UK EU Settlement Scheme was, in one sense, generous, and that it swept up EU citizens simply because they had lived in the UK for the required time but successive UK governments acted on a presumption that some did not actually have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement because they had not been in the jargon exercising treaty rights, which meant being a worker.

No actual test was applied, even though the Withdrawal Agreement allow that, so EU citizens were never told the legal status. As the Independent Monitoring Board authority, the watchdog for the rights of Easington is in the UK described it, in initially welcoming clause 42, there are people who have status under the USS who might not be entitled to rights under the agreement, this is a complex area, but there is a lack of clarity as to who has rights under the agreement and who does not.

It went on, the concern is that the potential instances where it would not matter whether a person with EU SS status does have rights or not. In these situations, citizens who are within the true cohort might need to reprove that they were residing in the UK in accordance with EU free movement rules at the end of 2020. As time goes by, it might become more difficult for citizens to find the relevant evidence, such as payslips, to prove that they met the rules at the end of 2020.

We do not know what implications this could have in the future for these citizens or future generations of citizens. Are you getting echoes of another scenario. I imagine that IMA saw that -- thought that clause 42 would wash away the need to go back and establish rights from years ago. But the absence of legal clarity identified still remains. Despite good intentions, past gremlins could pop up in the future and catch people out to precisely because the legal position has been left as unclear as it was in 2020 and this is no doubt why the Independent Monitoring Board authority seems to have had a rethink, commenting 10 days ago, and regards the white paper, the vast majority of the proposals that the government is consulting on should not affect the majority of citizens with EU Settlement Scheme status who have rights under the agreement.

Quite a few caveats there. I have to finish, but I would advise that, as Humphrey might have put it, it is not only unwise but brave of the Minister to risk recreating the Windrush miscarriage of justice. I suggest the government should start the wise -- should take the wiser course to start with a clean sheet. Hence, my benches will be tabling amendments which I hope might be signed by others to try and get the government to do that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I add my congratulations to Lord Harper on congratulations to Lord Harper on his Maiden speech. I thought you were not going to be in your place were not going to be in your place and so, in your absence, I was going to risk your reputation by saying that when you were Transport that when you were Transport Minister, I think the unions always had a good faith relationship with
21:09
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
had a good faith relationship with you. But, my Lords, I welcome the repeal of the scheme that saw £700 million of taxpayer money squandered, sending volunteers back to Rwanda. We should also commend the determination to crackdown on organised crime, which trades in human desperation. Those gangsters are not the only ones who have raked it in, the likes of Serco have also profited hugely from past failures to process asylum claims quickly and effectively. I am pleased to see this government tackling the backlog which not only racked up hotel bills but left traumatised refugees in limbo, barred from work, and unable to contribute to society.

Labour's approach must be clear, we punish the villains, not the victims. We need a system that is not only firm but fair and humane. This Bill focuses primarily on people who come across the channel in small boats, but as we have heard, that is a small part of the immigration picture. In the second half of the 20th century, Irish, Caribbean and Asian immigrants helped to build the NHS and our transport system. Often facing racism and discrimination for the trouble.

This century, we faced the challenge of an ageing population and falling birthrate, we faced and field frequencies, not least in health and social care and construction, and universities which rely on international student fees. We need to tackle the root causes of people's concerns. There are radical forces, well organised and resourced, which seek to scapegoat migrants. Migrants, of course, did not/funding for skills training, schools, hospitals and youth services. They did not sell off utilities and abandon whole towns to rot.

They did not neglect council House building in favour of luxury flats or jack-up private. The blame lies elsewhere. The remedy, including investment in public infrastructure is clear. Alongside this Bill, needs a strategy to ensure we are welcoming to newcomers and that we are all good neighbours to each other. For example, let's remember, before funding was cut, free classes in English for speakers of other linkages helped to build community cohesion and friendships. There are three specific issues that I briefly wants to raise, the first is modern slavery, this Bill repeals many of the most harmful provisions contained within the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

But the Bill retains provisions, notably section 29, which would disqualify modern slavery victims from support, safety, and protection, because of detention or convictions, which were a result of their exploitation. This could place the UK in conflict with its duties under the European can on action against trafficking and put venerable people at risk of re- trafficking. As well as repealing those provisions, will the Minister also consider granting modern slavery victims, who are in the national referral scheme, the dignity of a right to work? Secondly, this Bill makes no mention of safe routes for asylum seekers, yet people only risk their lives taking dangerous journeys to reach century and loved ones when it's safe routes are not available.

Also, the current family reunion rules are complex and, for many unaccompanied children, almost impossible to access. To break the people smugglers business model, will the Minister at least consider, as we have heard, from my noble friend, building on the success of the humanitarian scheme for Ukraine, to create more safe routes. Thirdly, workers, those who genuinely care about stopping those employers you who abuse migrant labour, should back the rights Bill. Including Fair Pay Agreements so that everybody, wherever they were born, get a fair rate for the job.

But in the wake of extreme exploitation scandals, including in social care, domestic service, food production and the fishing industry, can the Minister commit to ensuring that there is a proper risk assessment of employer exploitation before these sponsorship licences are issued? And, as in Australia, workers who are on visas have the right to report bad employers without needing to fear that as a result of that they would risk destitution or deportation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have heard, there are serious concerns in the country about the security of our borders. Of course, this is motivated by Of course, this is motivated by keeping ourselves safe, but it is also motivated by wanting to make also motivated by wanting to make sure that those who deserved claim asylum and who want to travel here asylum and who want to travel here are able to use a fair system. And that they have a good reception when they arrive. And that we are able to they arrive.

And that we are able to plan for a larger population. I'm afraid, at the moment, I'm not clear afraid, at the moment, I'm not clear that we are managing migration in such a way that we are able to plan such a way that we are able to plan for it in any great way. I want to say a couple of things, about examples of where this really matters. I get frustrated in this matters. I get frustrated in this place, almost every day, when you hear of a government, this or the hear of a government, this or the last, being blamed for things.

That is the nature of politics but I think last week, somebody was accused of needing nine more reservoirs. This was someone's fault. Regular complaints about housing. Lack of electricity, many other things we do not seem able to cope with. One reason, I suspect, is because of population growth. When I took over the Met, the proposition of London was about 7.4 million, the time I left, 8.4, today it's about nine. A significant amount of people
21:17
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
who have come to the UK have ended who have come to the UK have ended This is a significant shift. Some of This is a significant shift. Some of the symptoms of that growth, places like Newark, 50,000 people living in places that call beds in sheds. Places not designed to help people. Places not designed to help people. Garages to have things added on. And the fact that people live in such conditions, you are only waiting for epidemics or other things happen.

epidemics or other things happen. I'm afraid unless we plan in a good way to make sure all the facilities are there, everyone suffers. And are there, everyone suffers. And probably the ones that suffer the most are the migrants who arrived that we did not anticipate in the that we did not anticipate in the way that we might have done. Of course there are two major categories of migration in this country and the first is legal migration, so allowing those who migration, so allowing those who want to enter the country for economic reasons and asylum seekers or refugees, who need our help.

It seems to me at some point the last government got this a little wrong in terms of legal migration. Because by some of the measures they took, legal migration went out of control, got up to around 1,800 -- 800,000. I think Lord Green managed at the time that some of the leaders, it is not easy to predict how people react to them, probably set at the wrong level, so the last government changed some of those levels and that was mentioned earlier. I think this government is now using those levers to make sure legal migration is more under control.

Of course this Bill is about illegal migration. And how to improve our stopping it. And I do think it has some good ideas. But I'm honestly not convinced it is comprehensive, forensic or ruthless enough to deal with all the issues that we are facing now or will face in the coming years. I have four test this Bill to see whether it improves the situation we face. Where around 1,000 people a day are being seen to cross the Channel to land on our south coast.

My first test is will it deter people from trying to get here you have no right to be here? And we have said we do not want to cross the. At the moment there are thousands of people each year who broadly say we do not respect your rules and are confident that having crossed the border, we will not be removed. I don't see any great change in this Bill that is going to affect their motivation. My second test is when people have arrived here and been found to have no claim to remain, what will happen to them, particularly where they have a criminal record? I have got no confidence that those we wish to remove will be removed.

Even where they have a criminal record. And often in this country we do not always know the background of the people who are here. Because we do not know their identity. Consequently, we are not very familiar to some of the things they have achieved in the past or they have actually got involved in. My third test is will it deter or detect those who commit organised crime by arranging for people to bypass the rules for profit? I see very little in the Bill that shows me the Government were ruthlessly and massively go after the assets of the criminals.

If we can take the profit from the business, we can exert some control. There are some incremental steps in the Bill but I do not think it convinces me that we will see more than marginal improvement in the seizure of criminals assets. I thought test is, is there anything in the Bill that will allow the courts to distinguish better between valid and invalid claims for asylum? And in particular, how are they going to either change the European Convention on Human Rights or its interpretation, which presently seems to give precedence to the failed asylum seeker or the convicted criminal against the rights of people who are properly using the legal system and the victims of crime? Enclosing, can I highlight just one particular concern I have about this Bill.

It has been mentioned already by Lord Squires and also by Lord Brown on the Labour benches. The Border Security Commander is, as Lord Browne said, a misnomer. It has no people took amount -- Tucuman. And the organisations that have people to command are not commanded by it. At best it tries to coordinate those you have a duty to manage our borders. Those include the border agency, immigration service, National Crime Agency, security services and local police forces. And each of those organisations is accountable for their own actions but the board -- but the commander cannot persuade them to take any action.

I am not convinced that will make any difference to that. My final point is this, I think the Government has really it was today in defence. It has made an excellent announcement about our future for defence and sent a very clear message to our enemies. My challenge is, does this Bill send the same clear message to the organisers of illegal migration? I'm not convinced it does. At -- needs to speak clearly about the profit they are making an that they find if they continue, there will be a serious penalty.

And if they don't, two or three people are mentioned, people like Reform benefit. Which I don't think benefits many people at all. But unless we get some better answers to some of the things I have identified, I think that is the way it will go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been a very interesting debate listening to different views and makes me think were basically saying here we go again. And since I saying here we go again. And since I came into the other place, 1989, I thought I would ask the library just
21:22
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
thought I would ask the library just how many bills there have been up to now which had the word immigration or asylum or migration in it. And I thought it would be a number of those debates and I was astonished to find that there has actually been 14 bills, all since 1989, all called either national immigration, Asylum Bill, immigration asylum nationality Bill. Each government and the coalition government in different bills. They all had the same words, I looked at some of the second reading, Home Secretary's introductions to the bills, and they all talked about, and this was going to transform things, it was going to improve things, it was going to strengthen the borders, it was doing all sorts of things.

And of course, really, if we are honest, and of them actually achieved what was promised. I have to say to the noble Lord the Minister, who knows I have huge respect for him, he actually made a much more frank opening, which was basically saying how hopefully some of the things that could happen in this Bill would make a difference. I do welcome some of the measures. But I think the reality is that unless we are able to face up to the fact that the world is changing, people keep coming, the world is changing, so actually why don't we think then of genuinely looking at how the Refugee Convention needs to be changed or we work out bits of it that we can work with and bits that we cannot.

We also genuinely looking at the European Court of Human Rights. Time has moved on, time is changed. I know the noble Lord has ready mention that I was very disappointed that our Attorney-General actually accused anyone who was mentioning that we should talk about the European Court of Human Rights of being sort of working some kind of Nazi ideology. I know he has apologised but I do think it was a very great mistake. So I do think we have to face up to the reality that nothing will really change fundamentally until we have a look at those two ideas.

Because what we have seen is that over the years, the United Kingdom judges and I know there are a lot of lawyers in this place and they get very upset when you criticise anyone in the legal situation, but UK judges in immigration tribunal's have adopted ever more expansive definitions of ECHR articles. You know, allowing dangerous criminals to stay here, having all sorts of reasons why they should stay, some ridiculous reasons why some people have not been deported and there are thousands of examples of definitions of articles, not just article 8 article 3 as well been stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense.

And certainly beyond anything which was complicated by the people who originally framed it. Back in November 21, shortly after I came in, I was lucky enough to have a debate on migration. It was just sadly two days after we had 27 people were lost crossing the Channel, one of the biggest deaths that had happened. And I remember and I mentioned it then, one noble Lord had said to me before the debate, I really don't think we should be having this debate because it is going to be divisive.

And that actually is our problem. We have not been prepared to be honest and to face up and to talk about what people out there are talking about. And when they see the pictures that they saw over the weekend, of that very, very large number of young men, predominantly young then, and I went down to Dover, doing the last government with a group to visit, to see what was happening there, and when you actually see all those young men coming off the boat, obviously relieved and pleased to be there and to be safe.

And you realise that they are all young 18 to 24-year-old. And yes, there might be one woman on the bow or there might be a couple of babies that those smugglers or the criminals are very keen to put on. -- On the boat. But the reality is they cannot all be asylum seekers. I know the figures that have been given, 76 % of supposedly the people who come have been given asylum. I would ask the Minister and number of things on this. And he just tell me all these extra people who have been taken on to interview asylum seekers, can he tell me what the training is, how long it is before they are able to actually start meeting asylum seekers and estimating whether they are genuine or not? And is there any kind...

Because I think some people in the public might think this and because we want to speed up the process now, we want to get the numbers down, is there some kind of unwritten kind of convention, that it is much easier to tick the box and let the person stay? And what happens to all the people who are turned down, who had thrown away their documents, who we have no idea where to deport them back to? What happens to them? And what happens to the thousands, I'm sure it is thousands, who have come in the last years have literally disappeared? Where are they all? Have we got the figures of those? And those are things I think we need to know if we are going to get to the bottom of all of this.

I would just say also, we have a very open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. An Jim Allister, the TUV member, asked at the end of April to ask the Secretary of State what procedures are in place to check the movement of people over the Northern Ireland Republic land border to identify illegal immigrants with no rights to access the common travel area? An answer was very clear. No immigration checks are undertaken on the Northern Ireland Republic land border.

And yet, the same time, the Republic of Ireland I don't checks the other way at the border, even though they are the country that said there should not be any border there. So I do think we have to be much real realistic, much more honest. We cannot continue, it is unsustainable for any country to have so many people coming in who are not necessarily anti-British, of course they want to come to this country because the pull factors huge, but we have no idea what their ideology are, we have no idea whether they are going to actually get involved in and genuinely become British citizens, sharing some of our values.

It is a drain on our public services and most double, it is shattering cultural community feeling of togetherness. And we really need to accept that we have to do something. We will not smash the gangs unless we stop the boats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We stop the boats, we stop the gangs. Can I add my compliments to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I add my compliments to my noble friend, Lord Parker, on his characteristically deft Maiden speech. With his great political experience, he will always command the hearing in the chamber. Though perhaps a few people will hope perhaps a few people will hope fervently that he does -- that as a
21:29
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-
fervently that he does -- that as a former Chief Whip, he does not write his memoirs. However, we will see about that. In view of the lateness of the hour, city want to confine myself to one particular point. -- I simply want to contain myself. We will not stop the illegal immigration across the Channel and this -- unless we have a significant and strong deterrent. That is the fundamental fact of the matter. And that of course with the scope, the basis of the last government policy.

And the last government policy, which the government has now abandoned, was based on the experience of Australia. Just to remind the House, in 2001, a large number of people began to come across from Indonesia to the Northern Territory's of Australia. And then government, the National and Liberal government, enacted a series of legislative proposals which built up a system whereby people coming in illegally to the north of Australia were detained and flown out to near Tsion Firew, in the Solomon Islands -- flown out to the Solomon Islands.

And with that in place, the boat stopped, in two months, no more boats came from Indonesia or anywhere else. In 2008, the Labour Government came in and immediately abolished that system. Immediately the boats came back and within 18 months, 50,000 people coming across the sea to northern Australia. The event Labour Government realise they made a mistake and hastily tried to reintroduce the national liberal proposals. They lost the general election and in 2013, the Liberal National government got back its pre- -- brought back its proposals in the form of the sovereign borders arrangements.

And then the boats stopped again. Sensibly, the Australian Labour Government party then accepted the proposals and a then accepted the proposals and a Not only that, but it let them not only dealing with illegal immigration but legal immigration on a very understandable basis. There was a cap for each element of legal immigration, whether it is students, skilled workers or family people or asylum seekers, and a total. All of this is discussed in Parliament in an annual debate and is now bipartisan policy and the Labour government accepted this and have been re-elected to continue with this sensible policy, which is frankly the kind of policy we can only dream of in this country.

That was based on a bipartisan approach. Of course, there are differences between the Australian situation and the UK, it is not like the Channel Tunnel and the scrutiny we get from the media is much heavier than in Australia. But of course, we do not have a European Commissioner... The Australian does not have the European Convention on Human Rights to obey. The fact is, although there are differences, there are clear lessons from the Australian experience, first of all, deterrence is essential. As indeed Martin Hewitt, the new order commander, recognised.

Quoting from the times, it says Martin Hewitt announced on Monday efforts to tackle the small boats crisis. It is understood to have advised that deterrence need to be forming part of the government strategy. It echoes warnings from internal national crime agency memo that concluded efforts to stop migrant crossing the Channel will fail without deterrents such as remember. That is the first, deterrence is essential. The second point, we do need to come as Baroness Hoey said, to update the human rights the law.

Events move on, nor should not be setting concrete. We need to look at it again, nine European countries demanded exactly that to be done. That will take time, 46 signatories to the ECHR, but in the meantime we need to separate out and the supply the elements relating to asylum and illegal immigration of this kind. With the hope that the outcome is that it can be resolved over time. The final point, we should also strive for some element of bipartisanship, it has been achieved successfully in Australia, in our own continent, Europe, Denmark has got a bipartisan policy, in Australia it has been led that bipartisanship, led by the centre- right party.

In Denmark, the centre-left party. Surely the UK can do as well as those countries, if not, why not? not, why not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Immigration is constantly presented as a negative, something to be scared of, something to be feared, and the Border Security, feared, and the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill tries to address these fears, dealing
21:35
Lord Bilimoria Portrait Lord Bilimoria (Crossbench)
-
-
address these fears, dealing primarily with illegal immigration, which we all unanimously want to stop, after all, 150,000 people on the small boats came to the UK between 2018 and 2024, and 99% claimed asylum. Small boats had been the predominant entry method since 2020, 86% of irregular arrivals from small boats. The most recent arrivals bring the annual total up to 15,000 come up 42%, up 95% from 2023. We note the more than 1,100 that arrived on Saturday. It has placed burden on our asylum system, the Policy Exchange will report the annual cost is in the region of £3.6 billion.

This is costing, there is no question about it. The people smugglers and traffickers, they are causing untold misery, 138 people have sadly died attempting to cross the channel. There are other methods of transport like container lorries, let's not forget the 39 Vietnamese who died in a lorry in Essex. The organised immigration crime business model, groups are using sophisticated methods to smuggle migrants across the border. Using social media and it is appalling. Surely, the good news is, resetting the relationship, and security, is going to enable us to work closer and prevent these criminals.

Lord Green pointed out the net migration figure has gone up to 430,000, the illegal immigration... Put this in context, around 10% of this figure. 90% legal. When he spoke about birth rates, let's get real, I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about, birth rate of 1.44, need a birth rate of over two. The net migration figure was unusually high. In the year ending June 2024, it was driven by the health and care sector, we keep including international students and net migration figures, we should remove them.

As a former President of the CBI, I note that there are labour shortages in just about every sector of the economy. When it comes to resetting the relationship, I am delighted the Erasmus scheme has come back. To be able to travel abroad. What about the scheme about young people moving for three years between the EU and UK, could we have clarification on that. The post graduation work visa, which I worked to institute, there is talk that to institute, there is talk that this is going to come down to 18 months, the Migration Advisory Committee, lastly, reported that it is working very well, as intended.

Of course, the international student figures have gone down to 450,000, there was a reason for this, it is about immigration policy, the expense of studying, the cost of the thesis and the value of international students, £42 billion to the economy. The soft power that students bring, 25% of world leaders have been educated in the UK. This negative perception, I work hard on the UK India Free Trade Agreement. Yet there was a focus on national insurance, both ways, this is only fair, it is to do with workers who come here on the points-based system and transfer of workers between companies.

Lord Blunkett, in his excellent speech, said everyone should have an identity card, why don't we have an identity card, the one million people in India, financial inclusion, digital inclusion, security, we have 70 million people, India has offered a set model. We spoke about integration, I am all for integration, not assimilation but integration. My Lords, to conclude, about immigration which this Bill is trying to address is bad. But this country has always had a reputation for fairness and justice and welcomed genuine refugees and asylum seekers, it is good immigration that has made Great Britain great.

Without the 18% ethnic minorities in the UK, we would not be the sixth- largest economy in the world. I came to this country as an international student from India, I have had the opportunity to live the British dream. The Indian diaspora in this country to million strong. The largest community, I say with pride, the most successful community in this country. Reaching the top in every field from business, to academia, to politics. It is not fear, -- fear immigration, let us celebrate the good immigration
21:41
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Portrait Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Conservative)
-
-
Like to congratulate my noble friend, I look forward to future contributions in this debate and other debates. Years ago, I spoke in other debates. Years ago, I spoke in the second reading. In that the second reading. In that contribution I tried to make, unconvincingly at the time, a case unconvincingly at the time, a case that in terms of the social contract, we, the political establishment, were in the last chance. The influx of illegal and chance.

The influx of illegal and legal migration meant it was becoming impossible for any UK becoming impossible for any UK government to create with any significant degree, more routes for the people who are desperately seeking refuge. I am afraid, social contract between government and people in the area of immigration has only deteriorated over the past two years. It seems difficult to imagine a government commanding, I am sad to say this, government commanding public support for Assyrian, Afghan, Hong Kong or resettlement schemes at this point in time.

This is not a party political point. I acknowledge that much of the collapse of public confidence in the immigration system came on this site. I therefore look forward to a new government with a freshman that carrying on a radical program to ensure that we as a country can have and rebuild trust and the confidence required to operate properly regulated and controlled border. And, importantly for me, once again, give the public confidence to support future resettlement schemes that are impossible for government to choose.

There are elements I support, longer sentences, incorporating all sex offenders within section 33.2 of the Refugee Convention. I also fully support efforts made in addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, especially in small groups, however, I would like to ask, does the government really think the measures contained within this Bill are going to act as a deterrent when every week people smuggling can see ways of new approvals. What does the government really think the measures included help build public trust.

I was a supporter of the Roman scheme but understood it was bold and radical enough to act as a deterrent and similar schemes had success in Australia and Denmark. The government has abandoned the scheme and at the same time, Downing Street continues to brief at attempts to find a partner for offshore processing. The writing is on the wall, the government is going to get into a situation where we scheme, like the Rwanda scheme, is going to need to be applied.

However we will go through two years of increment step that achieved very little and build public exasperation. I understand this because that is exactly what the Conservatives have done. Only in the last years of the previous government will be able to take the steps that halved legal migration and achieved Parliamentary privilege for the Rwanda scheme which would have acted as a deterrent for legal migration. My Lords, getting control of our borders is not fraught meet some nativist static looked the part.

Staley -- failure to act and rebuild public confidence only harms one group, the very refugees that would be granted asylum through resettlement schemes that could command public and therefore political support. With every day that passes, without real action, the ability of this country to help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to join with others in congratulating my noble friend, in congratulating my noble friend, Naude Harper, in his entertaining and eloquent Maiden speech. My Lords, in his opening speech, the Lords, in his opening speech, the noble Lord the Minister said one aim of this Bill was to provide a properly functioning immigration
21:46
Baroness May of Maidenhead Portrait Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-
-
properly functioning immigration system. -- Lord Harper. To do that it is necessary to ensure there is no abuse of the system. One may awaken sure there is no abuse is to make sure the government is not operating a rigid point-based system that allows discretion to immigration officers. I have raised this point in the chamber with the Minister before and he inadvertently, I am sure, failed to respond to the issue I raised. But I would like the government to consider this as an important aspect of the immigration system.

But the main point I would like to refer to is one which has been raised by a number of other speakers in this debate, namely the impact of this legislation on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Despite all the protestations from the then opposition benches about the impact on the victims of slavery and trafficking of the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act when they were passing through Parliament, the Government has retained aspects of those acts which will have an impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.

And indeed have introduced new measures in this Bill which I believe will make it harder for us to identify those victims, harder for us to provide support for those victims and therefore less likely that those victims will come forward. Modern slavery and human trafficking is the greatest human right issue of our time. That alone should make the Government reconsider those elements of this legislation. But more than that, if it is harder for us to identify the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, if it is more difficult for those victims to come forward because of lack of support, if it is easier for the slave drivers and the traffickers to use government legislation as a threat to hold people in exploitation, then it will be harder to smash the gangs.

And I thought the Minister said in his opening speech that smashing the gangs was one of the aims of this Bill. As regards the impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, the Government needs to think again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Can I thank the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Can I thank the Minister for his straightforward introduction. I think he would be worried if he think he would be worried if he received a unanimous welcome to the Bill today. And we have heard some Bill today. And we have heard some rather different views, with which, to pick up Lord Harper's phrase, which I really enjoyed, we are on these benches are destined not to these benches are destined not to agree. And congratulate him on his speech. At this time of night, I don't want to spend time on matters on which over quite some years we have spent a lot of time and emotion opposing.

As my noble friend sadly
21:49
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
opposing. As my noble friend sadly clear, we welcome what we can and there's a good deal to welcome. -- Noble friends have made clear. The repeals take up so little space in the Bill, it might be easy to spend too little time on them. But we will not shy away from probing the principal detail and work ability of a number of provisions. There are several where we are some way from sharing Government's approach. The Bill includes policies on which, as others have said, many organisations in the sector are providing very useful comments and we want to thank them.

We will seek to persuade the Government of a number of policies and actions for which we have argued over some years. Sometimes alongside the Labour Party, but we will try to be tactful about that. Allowing asylum seekers whose claims are not determined to work, to retrieve their dignity and pay their way in jobs which are much less restrict than those in the shortage occupation list. If applications are dealt with within a reasonable time should not be too much of an ask.

Where we came within the Bill scope -- where we can within the Bill scope we will try and head of the some of the plans trailed in the immigration White Paper or introduced by recent rule changes which are causing so much anxiety and distress. The new criteria for the good character requirement for citizenship and doubling retrospectively period of settlement are high on our list, as are the language and financial requirements. Which, to me, is somewhat skewed way of looking at integration.

It is clear that a lot of UK citizens family members are affected what the White Paper heralds. And the more the Minister can clarify the details of the residence requirements tonight, the better. If public trust in the system is to be regained, respecting immigrants and asylum seekers as individuals, not some anonymous mother, must be one way to do it. And not completing asylum and immigration, as has been said tonight, we must be clear with our language. And I welcome the reflective speeches we have heard tonight which have focused on how we debate these issues.

We must ensure to that people who have and in some cases still are being exploited and abused are protected and supported. Not punished. That is our responsibility. The Minister will not be surprised we will argue for practical mechanisms, safe routes, to provide refuge for more people who need refuge from conflict afflicted areas. Sudan has been mentioned several times. Or because of who they are. We know we cannot provide for everyone but we must do better.

And I would refer any noble Lord who thinks we have been coy about our policy on safe routes, safe and legal routes, to have a look at our manifesto last election. Nor will he be surprised that we will again be seeking a more humane approach to family reunion, especially where children are involved. We continue to resist the notion that loan refugee children are a pull factor, push factors make them loan refugee children. I have no doubt we will spend time on children's protection and needs.

My noble friend Baroness Brinton and others will see to that. To the Bill with which we are presented, we welcome the repeals of extreme and crawl legislation but it does not go far enough. -- Cruel legislation. My noble friend has mentioned about detention. It is disconcerting and worrying that the government is not dealing with clauses that adversely affect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. As I say, we need more repeals. We know positive action and support are needed to make UK world leading again.

And we did not stay here at night until 4:16 AM to vote on age assessment not to address now all the concerns not to address now all the concerns there still are. For myself, I am underwhelmed by the clauses relating to the border commander. As the post was established, I think the day after the general election, and that must in large part the presentational... A very useful term. What have we been without the last 10 months? And I have to say, I do not care for the notion that responsibility does not sit squarely with the Home Office.

This is perhaps something and nothing compared with what is under the heading of other border security provision. Of course smugglers are to be condemned and responded to as organised criminals with money, a lot of it, as their objective, never mind who was damaged on the way. But some of the offences as drafted will criminalise people who must be recognised as victims, forced into certain actions. When smugglers victims are by definition on hand to be forced to steer boats, for instance, how is this a deterrence to the real criminals? Or indeed to those who are simply seeking refuge? Type provisions, lacking in safeguards caste people as criminals and I accept some who will be affected are but will these become routine on people who are on immigration bail? Or you actually have limited leave? Detention with retrospective powers while the Secretary of State, I am quoting, considers whether to make a deportation order and, " Always having had affect".

I know the government does not propose to attack students but it seems possible, especially in view of what is happening in the US, let's promote the UK's universities, not send out a message that they and others are viewed with suspicion rather than to be welcomed. Why is part three on the prevention of serious crime in this Bill when we have a Crime and Policing Bill coming along? Mind you, I know it is already very chunky. We certainly resist any suggestion that asylum seekers as a group should be categorised as serious criminals or indie criminals.

I am pleased -- or indeed criminals. I am pleased that my noble friend Baroness Ludford my noble friend Lord Oates who cannot be here today are prepared to take on the brain scrambling clause 42. On these benches we have over the years expressed our discomfort, to put it at its lowest, with civil orders which can morph into criminal penalties and we will want to be very careful with Serious Crime Prevention Orders. I have mentioned clause 41, powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations or use discretion are the bread-and-butter of this House is work.

Before anyone interrupts me, I am aware of the DPP are -- DPRRC Committees report. Who can propose cracking down further can propose cracking down further and cracking down on bad immigration advisers but what would help more would be more legal aid and not having IA fees at a level which may have an adverse effect on a number of skilled advisers, there is so much and met need now. Clauses about data always need our care. I'm interested in the point made by one organisation in the sector that the UK should have safeguards to ensure it is not transferring biometric information in such a way that it may place the subject at risk.

It is not a matter for legislation, but on Saturday I received a plea from help with the long outstanding application for ILR. The Home Office writing that there are, "Technical reasons" For the delay and this is not the case on which I have been correspondence with the Minister including this morning. One gets the feeling that there must be piles of two difficult, non-standard applications left on one side. -- Too difficult. Improving efficiency is not only about numbers, it is about the tricky cases too.

We look forward to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has to say about this Bill and maybe the Constitution Committee too. We will strive to turn this Bill into legislation that is focused not on deterrence, which we don't think is likely to be effective, nor on punishment, but on positive response to one of the big issues of our day. And by the committee stage, I might have thought of some music relevant to it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by thanking all noble Lord who have taken part in the debate today over the course of the debate today over the course of this evening. The bills focus, as the noble Lord the Minister stated at the outset, is illegal or irregular migration. I'm grateful to him pulling out the rationale and him pulling out the rationale and context of the Bill. -- Laying out. context of the Bill. -- Laying out. Although depart from him on much of the substance.

Now particular the substance. Now particular commend the Maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper. Given his long and distinguished career in the other place, as well as his time in other place, as well as his time in government as an immigration minister at one point, it is perhaps unsurprising that his excellent unsurprising that his excellent speech today was both eliminating and incisive and I for one look forward to many, many more contributions from him in the years contributions from him in the years ahead.

-- Both illuminating. This debate has made for assimilating and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most important areas of responsibility for any government in control of our borders. That phrase is an interesting one because it was only at the weekend we had a member of the government admitting that the UK has lost control of our borders. This was a startling admission from the Secretary of State for defence, no less, on a weekend that saw the highest daily total of arrivals this year, 1195 people on 19 votes and the fourth highest figure ever recorded.

-- 19 votes. I admire his frankness. We need to be frank. We need unflinching quango -- calendar, as my noble friend put so eloquently. Controlling our borders is fundamentally important to our national security and to our integrity as a sovereign nation. Despite the decades of peace and globalisation we all experienced
22:01
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
over the last 80 years, it remains the first and foremost duty of any government. We also need to recognise that controlling our borders is away in which we define, sustain and protect our national sustain and protect our national identity. Not just our national identity. Not just our national Since this government was elected, the numbers have increased. Almost the numbers have increased. Almost 37,000 people across the channel in small boats in 2024. Of those who arrived that year, more than 23,000 arrived that year, more than 23,000 did so after the election.

For all the condemnation that we have her the condemnation that we have her tonight of the Rwanda act, let us not pretend that the last year, and this current government, has been anything other than a failure in terms of illegal crossings. The gangs self-evidently have not been smashed. This situation is untenable. But it is tragically also costing lives. The UN estimates that at least 78 migrants died in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record. It says at least 225 migrants have lost their lives attempting to cross since 2018.

This is an unlawful route of entry into the UK, overseen by gangsters, that is tragically taking its toll on human lives. That is why, amongst many other matters, we have to deter people from making this journey. None of this should be controversial. I am sure that I enjoyed my noble Lords across the House when I say it is incumbent on the government, as a matter of supreme urgency, to introduce measures that are courageous enough, bold enough, definitive enough, to stop this level of legal migration from happening.

With regret, I do not believe the proposals that we have before us will achieve this. Given the scale of the problems we face, I hope the government will consider the concerns that have been raised today by those who have called for more stringent measures.. My noble friend outlined many of these issues in his opening speech. In a moment I'd like to concentrate on specific points where we believe there are problems. Before I do so, I would like to address the context of the Bill, namely the provisions which are designed to undo the work of the last government in terms of legal migration and safety of wonder act.

It is not surprising a new administration will seek to introduce some of the policies of the predecessor of a different political hue, that is democratic politics after all. But this be clear, about the reality of what this will mean. It will mean that the Home Secretary is no longer duty-bound to make arrangements to remove illegal fragments to the home country -- migrants to their home country or a safe country. It will mean some can obtain British citizenship and asylum seekers will no longer be treated as a 18 if they refuse to take a scientific age assessment.

Those are a few reasons why we believe this Bill will not succeed. If you are contemplating an illegal crossing into the UK, with a degree of protection from renewable, with British citizenship, and the bypass of age checks, making you more or less likely to attempt the trip? More likely, of course. As my noble friend said, it is important to ask why people try to come to the UK illegally, the answer lies, in part, in the provisions of this Bill.

I was content. In removing the provisions, the government proposes to replace them with new offences and those new offences are one example, we say, of where technical measures simply will not work in practice. The Bill creates a new offence of selling and handling small boat parts for use in Channel crossings. It will also make it illegal to supply Jessica's suspected of being for use by people smuggling gangs and supplying forged ID documents, very specific, technical points. But as a matter of logic, criminalising such activity makes little sense, these supply chains are based in Europe, the boats are coming from France to the UK, the point at which lifejackets, boats and any documents get to the UK is when they appear on the beaches where illegal migrants are landed, at which point, it is far too late.

Maybe there is provision in the Bill for such offences to occur outside the UK, but the reality is, by the time perpetrators prosecuted, the boats will have arrived. In essence, the government is proposing to tear up laws which create direct disincentives to make the journey in the first place, and replace them with a list of new offences which will only operate once migrants are already here. Other problems with this Bill involves the proposal of a new Border Security Command.

Despite the title, if we look below the surface, as my noble friend said, what the government is actually proposing is a civil servant who acquires in the designated role and, may I add, a vague remit, that is before we get the potential to duplicate work of the existing small boats operational command. This proposal does not appear to be adding value at present. Explanatory notes to the Bill set out that Border Security Command is responsible for setting strategic priorities for border security, surely that strategic priority is simple and can be stated in one sentence.

Stopping in legal migration and protecting our borders. Prime Minister and Home Secretary do not need a new agency or office to tell them this. I want to ask the Minister, if he believes that, in addressing this issue, we need to take tougher steps to crackdown on organised crime in this area, will he support amendments that might be made at Committee stage, to strengthen the powers of the Border Security Command so that when the Believe this place, it proposes a cogent and effective office able to tackle head-on the crisis we are discussing.

Thirdly, the importance of a deterrent, and the absence from the bill, this is a point that many have made. We need to prioritise stopping people from making the journey in the first place. As my noble friend, Lord Lilley, said, more eloquently than I, the only way we can address this problem is by creating a substantial and meaningful deterrent, if we want illegal migrants to stop coming, we must give them no reason to want to come. Otherwise they would go to any length to circumvent even the strongest legal prohibitions.

My Lords, the numbers that I cited earlier people smuggling gangs are circumventing the law as it stands already, but is before the government repeals a large swathes of the last government legislation. Surely the Minister cannot be confident that this Will contain serious, coherent deterrence to people who are weighing up the decisions to cross the channel. Changes proposed in terms of citizenship, staying in the UK, simply will not deter people who want to come here illegally. And as my noble friend said, the Bill might lead to the removal of the revised act, but it contains no deterrent itself, a point also made by my noble friends.

We do have some suggestions for the noble Lord, the Minister, which I hope you will consider, seriously, as we progress to Committee stage, I suggested some of these policies already in the chamber, the first is that we automatically put anyone who arrives into the country we are a caring and considerate nation, people across this country have opened their homes and family lives to refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan, there are other successful resettlement schemes, we have safe only great for people to seek asylum in our country, we should not tolerate people skipping the queue by trying to enter illegally.

The British people possess profound compassion they also have deeper sense of fair play and that fairness and kindness that exploited, we should not tolerate it, especially as it comes at the expense of people who do use legal, recognised routes to seek asylum, secondly, the proposed Human Rights Act beta supplied from all immigration matters, this would prevent foreign nationals exploiting our courts, with arguments designed to avoid deportation or exploit the asylum system. The Human Rights Act is designed to protect and uphold fundamental rights.

But this is demonstrably not how it is used in matters of immigration and I speak as somebody, in a past life as a lawyer, who acted for asylum seekers, this has been used to prevent the deportation of convicted foreign criminals, it is tying the hands of government and preventing the deportation of those who cause harm. I note, with interest, the current government has said about the interpretation of article 8, there is an acceptance by the Home Secretary herself that the application of article 8 raises significant concerns.

Those who have little respect for fundamental rights should not be able to hide behind such rights when the actions catch up with them, this is a sensible proposal which will ensure foreign criminals on a longer able to impose themselves on the communities they harm. Finally, we encourage the government to adopt a legally binding annual On migration, voted on by Parliament. A measure that limits levels of migration, requires political courage, as Lord Green stated. This would ensure migration levels are determined by the British people through the elected representatives, for decades.

The British people have demanded politicians promised to dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive government, of course except thanking his last one, has not delivered. It is time to deliver what the public want. What we propose is that the government is legally tied to a cap, to control immigration, in line with what communities up and down the country are telling us is the limit. I anticipate the Minister will welcome the proposal of a cap if they are confident the measures in this Bill will reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally and making them accountable to the British people surely something they will support.

To conclude, the debate we have had today has raised many interesting points. Sure we can agree this is a profoundly serious issue, one that is of fundamental importance to people across the UK. The simple fact is, we need to stop people coming here illegally and has not believes, with respect to the Minister, the proposals in this bill will do that. We need a system close to criminals, intolerant of those trying to exploit structures, and one that is free to take the necessary steps to protect the borders and communities and, more than anything, we need a full skull, affecting deterrent to stop people coming here illegally in the first place.

We intend to push the proposals at Committee stage to make this Bill that does deter illegal migrants and I look forward to working with the noble Lord across the House as we progress the festive committee and I want to thank all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. I'm grateful to everyone who has contributed today. We commence this debate at 1809, and four hours later debate at 1809, and four hours later come we are coming to a conclusion. I sense it is only an order for what
22:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I sense it is only an order for what will come in committee stages downstream as we consider this matter in due course, we have had a thoughtful debate and I echo the noble Baroness, and indeed my noble friend, Baroness LEA Grady and language and tone is extremely important in how we approach these debates, as mentioned, there are forces who will exploit these matters if we, as the Democratic House and Parliament, don't deal with these issues in an effective way.

I want to start, if I may, by paying tribute to Lord Hope on his Maiden speech. He is right, I shadowed him for a while, he was the Minister, I did go to Cali in 2014, I did try to put points to him and the Home Secretary, whilst we had disagreements, I don't think we fell out, had a close relationship, which I hope will continue. I particularly welcome his comments about the late Sir Roy Stone who served in the Whips' Office for many years.

Lord Kerr... I have forgotten where he is off but Lord Kerr talked about an orchestra, we have had some elements of cohesion in the sense that there are some areas where there is agreement. We have got agreement that we need to look at the issues of prevention, we have got agreement about a deterrent, although we disagreed about what it should be. We have had some discussion around safe routes, we have had an agreement on a security command and the need for that coordination and we have had agreement on international obligations being met and I want to share my noble friend Lord Sahota and others, who races, that we will maintain International Agreements and corporation as set Agreements and corporation as set The debate also covered students, family reunion, net migration, exit and entry regulation, integration pressure on homes, the value of migration and statistics which the noble Lord mention which are important.

If I may say to noble lords and that includes Lord Bilimoria and others... Those are issues which I think are at the heart of the immigration white paper which does not form part of this bill today, but which is good background to the issues that have been raised and will form part of the government's ongoing strategy to develop an approach to migration issues. Whilst they are important today, I don't want to ignore them, but I don't want to focus on them today because today's focus is about the question of this legislation and what we do about the illegal migration, irregular migration that is taking place.

I say to the noble Lord who kicked off the debate, how have we got here? How have we got where we are today? The hotel accommodation, asylum use, the level of small boat incursion. They didn't happen since July 4 last year, they are long-term systemic issues over which his government presided. We have to look at collectively solutions. There are many views on this bill and there are many views put forward today by noble members of this House on this bill and its provisions.

The government is trying to do is put measures in place to deal with those key issues. The first of that measure, this goes to the heart of a number of points that have been made by others, is the question of deterrence. We have taken a decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act. We had a welcome from that from some, there was a clear difference between the noble lords on the Safety of Rwanda Act and the current government.

That difference is that we need a deterrent. I think that is about capturing boats, looking at assets, putting measures in place to disrupt those gangs, but it's not the safety or for the scheme as determined by the previous government. That spent already 700 million pounds of taxpayers money to send back only for people who went voluntarily during the passage of that bill, when it became law to when it was determined by this government to be repealed, 84,000 people still cross the channel.

That was not a deterrent for those individuals at that stage. We do need a deterrent and I would say the deterrent we need is the type of arrest he asked me to look at that we have made already. Syrian organised crime group are wrestling to those with migrants to the UK. The arrest of the Turkish nationals suspected of being a supplier small boats. Conviction of two men running a smuggling gang. The arrest with German law enforcement support operations on 13 arrests across Germany and France.

The NCA establishing with authorities in Libya and Kyrgyzstan how we tackle smuggling at the upstream level. Those are deterrence and we need a deterrent. The government does not believe the safety or for the scheme was one that was effective. The question of what we do and places very important. This establishes the security demand. The viscount rightly said one of the key performance indicators on that. That is a reduction in the number of migrant crossings and disruption of the gangs.

We will discuss that as the bill goes forward. Lord Hogan- Howe raise that issue as did others. The commander in place is going to provide strategic cross system leadership, is already engaging with nations in the European Union about what we need to do together, has already worked with the NCA, the Home Secretary and others to establish both the Iraq scheme we establish both the Iraq scheme we put in place and the Calais Group to look at how we can reduce the number of crossings at that level.

We will be judged on the indicators that need to be put in place our work already has prevented 9,000 crossings this year. Germany through the work of the Border Security Commander is looking to change its laws so they can prosecute people upstream on supply. We have secured the landmark agreement with Iraq, set up the new border command. There needs to be indicators as the noble viscount mentioned, but I believe that's an important issue we have undertaken. As well as the actions we have taken to date, we scrapped the Stockholm that she mentioned in her speech.

We have taken a range of issues to do with current accommodation. We are committed to reduce the level of asylum hotels and we are committed to use the resource from the scheme that we have scrapped in Rwanda to speed up processing of asylum claims, to determine who has a genuine asylum claim according to our international obligations. Who doesn't and then to remove them. That's part of the importance of this bill, to put the framework in place. A number of noble members have raised the question of safe and legal routes, including the liberal Democrat Frontbench and Baroness Hamwee, Lord Carter and others.

The UK has a strong history of providing protection through safe and legal routes and we want to continue to welcome refugees and people in need and we already have bespoke routes to sanctuary such as the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong schemes at the moment. In relation to Sudan we have already accepted 300 nationals to be resettled through our schemes since September 24. The safe and legal routes are there. Do we need to review them and look at how we meet our international evocations? Yes.

I refer to the immigration white paper that is before us. I think the safe and legal route option, as Lord Dubs discussed his family reunion option. I think there are safe and legal routes we can look at, but I am sure I will discuss with my noble friend as I have done already, his concerns during the upcoming stages. I will give consideration to how we can improve understanding and knowledge and action on those areas. Noble members have mentioned the wider Lord Brown and others have also mentioned it.

One of the things this government is not going to do is stand back from Europe. We will not revisit the Brexit debate now, we can't, but what we can do is look at how we can improve cooperation on key issues. That means law enforcement, but it also means a whole range of things. We have extra support with Europol. We've had the support with Europol. We've had the EU UK summit in May, where I package of measures that address all elements of the global challenge are being discussed.

Because again, deterrence is also about understanding the problem. Lord Goodman mentioned that very clearly about how we understand that problem. One of the things we need to do is work with our European partners, not our EU partners anymore, but still European partners, to assess and examine the challenge of irregular migration upstream. That's one thing we are trying to do collectively to improve that European work. We've done a lot of work on France on organised international crime.

Because it's a shared problem where all nations have a role to play. It's really important that we have to the Border Security Command operational activity at a local level with nations that are bordering us as a whole. The results of that of same 30,000 return since the election, 12% increase over the previous time and a 23% increase in and forced returns and increase in foreign national offender removals. Those are important issues, they are areas we need to look at as part of the immigration white paper as a whole.

Let me turn to modern slavery because I understand and note the concerns that have been made by Baroness May and others. The sole modern slavery provision in the bill would allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public grounds. The Home Office is committed to working with partners to agree priorities on the long-term reform as part of the national referral mechanism. I understand what she has said, but I will look at that issue.

I don't want to see watering down of modern slavery provisions. I supported the bill, now the act that she took through his Home Secretary some 10 years ago. I want to make sure we deal with that. The purpose of the modern slavery issues we're looking at is how we deal with national offenders who are involved in modern slavery. I have heard what she said today and we will look at that. There is an opportunity to examine those issues as we progress the bill.

Lord Swire mentioned third country processing. That is not the Rwanda scheme. There are exams currently undergoing with partners across Europe, scoping work has shown it's a model that could meet our obligation -- international obligations and reduce the burden on UK shores. We will look at and work closely with international partners to look at the global migration crisis as a whole. I want to end on a couple of other points that have been mentioned. The EU Settlement Scheme was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

EU citizens rights is designed to affirm what has thought and practise and see UK settlement scheme was established. I have heard again what she said, I hope when we look at that in detail we can take on board those issues and debate them in full. I hope we can give her some satisfaction on those issues. The noble Baroness raised a number of key points also, again I will reflect on the points she has made as I hope she knows I will.

The right reverend Prelate mentioned one particular point on the pilot on detention. Can I give him the assurance that the department is going to keep under review the feasibility of alternatives to the detention pilots taking into account the effectiveness and cost efficiency as part of our plans to transform the asylum and returns system and I will refer to him in due course on those issues. Our international obligations are extremely important and again, the bill does not include those, but there is an opportunity within the discussion on the bill to outline still further what we are doing on those issues.

I would say to all noble lords that we had a wide-ranging debate on migration and immigration issues today. Much of that is outside the scope of this bill, but I understand why it has been linked to the bill. This bill is designed to focus on illegal migration predominantly and in doing so, we have established the border command, we are giving the border command powers to confiscate a track mobile phones, look at how we deal with downstream suppliers and also to what we are saying in our manifesto, which is to disrupt and spoil the gangs that are operating on this evil trade cross channel.

That's what the bill will do. I defy anybody in this House to say any measures in the bill should not be undertaken in terms of that action on those criminal gangs. We will have an honest debate about the deterrence issue and the repeal of the Rwanda bill. We believe we have alternatives to that. The measures alternatives to that. The measures alternatives to that. The measures The issues of how we look at integration, students, family reunion, how we build a society where people are respected and integrated and how we value the people who come to this country over many years and through many generations, our issues are in the white paper and they will be debated but I can see the noble Lord wants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have an intervention. Would the Minister, for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the Minister, for his comprehensive and helpful summing up comprehensive and helpful summing up of the debate, he might not be able to answer this immediately, will he write to me, he will understand the current discussions around reforming the ECHR and other white immigration the ECHR and other white immigration issues, there are nine countries doing that, this country has not doing that, this country has not found itself of the opportunity to found itself of the opportunity to take part, will he write to myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and explain why that is the case? We are aware of the threat that they have been in a letter circulated by countries, perfectly legitimate, countries within the European Union, we are outside the EU, we are going to look at article 8 and the provisions of article 8 and look at how we can interpret that. But maintaining, importantly, for those members who have raised this issue, our role of being a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations.

It does not mean we can't look at interpretations and examination of how we implement those regulations in a UK context, and we will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues as a whole. In conclusion, I will just say, I will look at Hansard in detail, I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full, and look forward to the debate we will have on specific amendments and courses, but I looked at this House to give support to the government proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if they do have legitimate asylum claims, the way in which this has been done, by criminal gangs, for illegal profit, we need international cooperation to tackle downstream issues and the gangs at source, and I commend this Bill to this House today, to continue that progress and ensure that we have a full debate after second reading is approved on the content of this Bill and the suggestions that will come forward from all sides of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. As many are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I play to move the other motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. That the House do now
22:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Hart of Tenby and Baroness Prentis of Banbury
-

22:39
22:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Hart of Tenby and Baroness Prentis of Banbury
-

22:40
22:40
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page