Lords Chamber

Tuesday 8th July 2025

(began 5 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third oral question. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. UK strongly supports global efforts to protect global forest that remain steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The committee is currently considering its approach to addressing the impact of the use of commodities in our supply chains and will update the House in due course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, there is no way to stabilise, it will continue to stabilise, it will continue to destroy vital life. The UK has a destroy vital life. The UK has a real opportunity to show ambition in tackling deforestation. In the tackling deforestation. In the upcoming COP30. Can a minister say whether the government's ambition will be greater than that of will be greater than that of schedule 17? And will it align with the EU deforestation regulation? the EU deforestation regulation? Which is more robust and wide-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ranging. I can confirm that we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can confirm that we are ambitious and we are committed to delivering on a shared commitment delivering on a shared commitment that was reflected by the parties of that was reflected by the parties of the local stock-take at COP28, so we do have ambition in that area. do have ambition in that area. Regarding the EU regulations, the UK and EU share a common commitment to tackle deforestation in supply chains. As I am sure the noble Lady and the noble Lords are aware, we are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU.

That will lead to closer engagement on issues exactly like this on deforestation. We also recognise the need to take action to ensure the UK's consumption of forest risk commodities is not driving deforestation. And clearly, business also needs certainty, so it is absolutely something we are looking at along with the EU.
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Business of the House
-

today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as the next business will cause me to leap up and down will cause me to leap up and down like a jack in the box, this seems to be a very convenient moment to to be a very convenient moment to invite those noble Lords who wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, business My Lords, business of My Lords, business of the My Lords, business of the House,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move the notion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, we now come to two instruments previously debated in grand committee, subsidy Subsidy Control (Subsidies and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations. I beg to move the notion standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the notion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my name on the Order Paper. The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations. Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hayman of Ullock. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name only Order Paper be approved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
15:20
15:20
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
in the House of Commons yesterday, on the fiscal rules.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we honour these benches except fiscal rules are important and we have noted the government attachment to the current version attachment to the current version and the wisely concern as to whether government will turn on spending cuts or tax rises, as it is apparent cuts or tax rises, as it is apparent the rules are not going to be met. Today's OBR fiscal risk and sustainability report concludes that sustainability report concludes that the UK public finances have emerged from a series of global shocks, in a from a series of global shocks, in a relatively vulnerable position.

We have heard from the OBR that the UK government has the sixth highest government has the sixth highest debt, the fifth highest deficit, and the third highest borrowing cost among 36 advanced economies. In among 36 advanced economies. In November, the Chancellor wrote to the Economic Affairs Committee, in response to their robust and response to their robust and convincing report on the UK's convincing report on the UK's national debt. She said, and I quote, " The budget took the necessary difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path.

Setting realistic plans for public spending whilst raising revenue to create the conditions for growth." In the light of the dismal and oppressing OBR report, does the noble Lord, the minister, agree that this statement, anti-government's entire economic strategy is in tatters, and she needs to write another more realistic letter? another more realistic letter?
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: The UK’s response to the malign actions of the Iranian regime
-

Questions to answer on Urgent Question made in the House of Commons yesterday on Iran.
15:30
15:31
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I think, as I said before, Iran poses a serious threat, as I said, we have already foiled over 20 plots in the UK and these plots have been focused on all of our citizens, but particularly communities including the Jewish community. So I don't underestimate the threat that Iran poses and I think all possible action needs to be considered in order to secure our people and make sure that they can walk on the streets safely.

We have seen what they can do and I think it's very serious, that we do need to respond. As I say, proscription of the IRGC is not something that we think at this moment in time is appropriate, and certainly I'm not going to predict actions but what we have been absolutely clear is that we will take the Jonathan Hall 's recommendations seriously and we will implement them all.... Nuclear threat, it represents a much what a threat, it represents a much what a threat.

Given that the IGC and military intelligence have been summoning the relatives of political activists who live abroad, and telling them that unless this political activists stop the activity, anything could happen to activity, anything could happen to their relatives at home, given that over 700 people have been arrested over 700 people have been arrested in the past few weeks, and given that over 150 have been executed, in the last month, is it not time now the last month, is it not time now to move on from that mantra that it is not yet time to proscribe the IRGC and could that noble Lord the Minister tell us what the states Minister tell us what the states solution tool to act -- that proscription would not to.

 I'm not going to predict exactly what form that would take but what I do agree with the noble Lady on is that Iran and its state organisations, all of its state organisations, pose a threat, and we need a holistic approach which is why we are Master of an whole to conduct a review, why he has come up with some very serious recommendations which include, as I say, a new state thread prescription, and how that will eventually work I can't determine.

I do think it's really important to stress, not only is Iran a serious threat to our citizens here, but of course the human rights record is absolutely appalling. We also close threat to the families of BBC service people and we have to act very seriously on all aspects of that threat.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time is up on that question. In order to fix our current technological challenges, we require
15:40
15:48
15:48
15:49
None Portrait Amendment:31 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

with organised immigration crime offences. We will hear later about safeguards and modern slavery and return to the question of what might constitute a reasonable explanation constitute a reasonable explanation only part of a migraine. We go to 31 in my name, and I'm happy to be in my name, and I'm happy to be associated with amendments 32, 42 and 53, which are also grouped with this. The committee should note that these amendments are linked to the next group of amendments, beginning with 33, and I will give keep some of my powder dry, my Lords, to explain why the Minister should give them a winner and a promise of further consideration for Sub- Committee will know that these amendments in this and subsequent group, part of the recommendations contained in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on this bill, and appeared in the report as Amendment three.

I was very grateful to the Minister for his assurance, but before we reach the next stage of the bill in September, there will be a considered response to the report and its implications. As a grammar school boy and a council estate, and a mother whose first language was Irish rather than engage, I remember being daunted as an 11-year-old, by my first lesson in Latin. Later in life, I read with some amusement that Winston Churchill questioned the use, in an evocative case, oh table, when learning the word Mensa, his teachers explanation was that it was used to address a table, was met with Churchill's practical, albeit pertinent, response, but I never do.

I think the great man would have saw more practical use for the words mens rea, meaning guilty mind in Latin. The linguistics to one side, my barrister daughter issuers me that it remains a crucial concept in criminal law. It refers to the mental state of a defendant at the time of committing a crime and specifically their intention, knowledge, or recklessness, regarding the prohibited act. That mental element, along with the physical act, actus reus, must be proven for a person to be found guilty of a crime.

My Amendment 31, at clause 13, page 7, line 9, leaves out that, and inserts the words 'intends that all is reckless as to whether', this amendment gives effect to the recommendation that the mens rea threshold for clause 13 ought to be one of intentional recklessness. Amendment 41, which is Amendment four in a joint committee report, appears that clause 14, page 8, 99, -- Line 9, leaves out 'knows or suspects that' and inserts, 'intends that all is reckless as to whether full' amendment 41 also gives effect to the recommendations that the men mens rea threshold ought to be one of intentional recklessness, so it has the same effect, my Lords, as Amendment 31 but in a different clause.

Put these amendments into the context of clause 13 to clause 17, which create three new precursor offences, to target the activities and facilitators, and organised criminal gangs, who look to profit from organised crime. This seeks to raise the mens rea threshold for someone who might be caught with the offence of supplying or offering to supply, or handling the relevant article or handling the relevant article here using the commission of certain immigration offences. The words in clause 13 'knows or suspects that' is a lower mens rea threshold compared to intention and recklessness, which is what the JCHR recommendation is urging those to substitute.

The report notes that comparable precursor terrorism offences have a higher mental element requiring intention to commit or assist, in the commission of terrorist acts. Note, my Lords, that in paragraph 17 of the JCHR report, liberty provides an example in their written evidence, which illustrates how a woman fleeing persecution and who has had a phone stolen and whose British grandfather provides her with her phone to help her, despite suspecting she will use it to contact smugglers, might both be caught by this offence.

In paragraph 19 of the JCHR report, the immigration Law practitioners Association provides a further example of how a well-meaning individual handing out SIM cards in Calais, by way of humanitarian assistance, to a father, who passes it to his daughter, may both be prosecuted for having supplied a relevant article. Paragraph 38 of the JCHR report concludes that the breadth of the precursor offences captured in clauses 13 to 17 of the bill " Poses a risk of unintended
15:54
15:55
15:55
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 13, page 7, line 9, leave out 'knows or suspects that' and inserts 'intends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that all is reckless as to whether'. Cited two years of Roman law which didn't stick. But mens rea in which didn't stick. But mens rea in criminal law did stick. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I, are very much on the same page here. He did not quote the rather neat line from his committee's report, that it considers that " The precursor is offences would benefit from greater circumscription." I thought that was very circumspect in its language.

Rather typical of the careful language that our Select Committees use. My amendments 32, 42, and 53, are, if you like, more instinctive or amateur. I think his are actually technically better and I am happy to support them. My amendments go to the words 'suspects and suspicion' in clauses 13, 14 and 16. That is a very low threshold, with the burden on the person charged, to show beyond all reasonable doubt that they had a reasonable excuse.

I looked up the definition of the words. The Oxford in this dictionary -- The Oxford English dictionary. To find suspects as follows. Imagine on slight or no evidence. And also means to believe or fancy to be guilty, with insufficient proof or knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the first day of committee, working from a superseded grouping of amendments, not his fault, described all the amendments in the group, which included these, as being well-meaning. And I choose to take that as a compliment.

I am not sure that it was intended quite directly as a compliment. He said that they would provide a significant change in the burden of proof with respect to evidence. Exactly. That's the point. Because these are criminal offences with substantial penalties. That should require a high burden of proof. I am very uneasy that in the circumstances, a term which I could describe as casual doesn't require much from the prosecution. We will come to the content later but I will be raising this point whatever the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content of the offence. My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and have a great deal of Alton, and have a great deal of respect for the side of the argument he is coming from, but the piece that was missing from his argument, I thought, and the noble Lady, I thought, and the noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee, was about the Baroness Hamwee, was about the concept of deterrence. What the government is actually trying to do here is to put in play, as far as I here is to put in play, as far as I understand it at the Minister will obviously correct me if I am wrong, what the government is trying to do is put in place a framework that is put in place a framework that actually stops people, and that is both the organised criminal groups, but also those that pay them and but also those that pay them and help facilitate that immigration crime, to stop doing these things in crime, to stop doing these things in the first place.

And there is a the first place. And there is a Between the criminal law put in place and penalties, it does need to be sufficiently tough, that you actually did her people in the first
15:59
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
actually did her people in the first place. And if I just picked some of the examples from the joint committee's report, or their position in the first place, where it talks about the offences being, the scope being abroad and the thresholds low at the penalties high. That is correct. I think what the government is trying to do, and if it is trying to do this I would support it. It is trying to set those penalties in such a case that it would deter people from trying to cross the channel.

Let's just remind ourselves, from a safe country. They are not fleeing persecution in France. They are already in a safe European country where they are not fleeing persecution. They may have been fleeing persecution from a country they originally came, but now they are a safe European country. And of course, we do also note that a lot of the people that are undertaking these journeys are not fleeing persecution of fossil travelling for economic reasons, but those are not the reasons we should allow, let's pick the example that the noble Lord quoted from the joint committee's report.

I have a slightly different take on them. The way they are presented in the report. I think it is intended to have the reader think that self- evidently, we should be on the side evidently, we should be on the side of the people, and we follow through and effectively follow the amendment. I have to say, I do not necessarily follow that at all. One necessarily follow that at all. One example is given at paragraph 22. Of a teenage boy in northern France who sends his mother in the UK a screenshot of the weather report, showing that the channel will be relatively clear.

And he crosses to the UK the following day on a dinghy, and she has committed an offence because she read the message. Well, yes, he should have committed an offence, he is in a safe country and across into the United Kingdom, facilitated by people, on a journey we are trying to stop him taking. I think it is the government because my contention that he is committing an offence. I think the government wants him to think he could be committing an offence.

And I think the government is trying to deter the action that is currently happening because we are trying to stop people coming to this country. That is the point of The danger is that the report is coming at it from a particular angle, only from the point of view of the person undertaking the journey, it is not looking at the wider position, which is what we are trying to do with having a Border Control Post, which deters people from entering the UK where they don't have a reasonable reason for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing so. Happy to give way. ... To finish what he was going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... To finish what he was going to say. Is it not sensible to look at it from the point of view of the it from the point of view of the person who may be undertaking the action, if there is to be deterrence, we have to look at it deterrence, we have to look at it from that point of view. Whatever your objective is, you have to look at it from the point of view of the at it from the point of view of the person who may be affected, person who may be affected, otherwise you can't assess whether there is a deterrent effect.

And there is a deterrent effect. And does the noble Lord think that does the noble Lord think that people who reach the northern shores of Europe are as aware of the detail of legislation as his argument would require them to be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

require them to be? On the first point, I am very much looking at it from, in one much looking at it from, in one sense from the point of view of the participant because actually I do participant because actually I do want them to be clear that carrying out the particular set of actions would indeed be an offence with a significant penalty because what I want them to do is to then conclude they don't want to do that and not to cross the channel from the safe country which they currently reside into the United Kingdom, that is the point of the legislation.

The second thing is, I think I am very clear, having had some experience of having to run the immigration regime in the country and particularly with the development of technology, I think the noble Lady will find that most of the people concerned, they all have mobile telephones, they are well aware of what is going on, there are many groups out there who provide detailed information to migrants about the position of the law, the position of groups that enable them to be facilitated and smuggled into the UK, they are very well aware of changes we make, and they are very well aware of the legal position, and we know, and I'm only saying this because the top of my head, we were well aware when we were running up to the election that there were lots of communications going to people who were in France about the likely outcome of that selection and whether they should stay put, or the crossing to the UK.

They are very well aware of what is going on. And I think that is very relevant. The other thing on the test that she talked about, which I think is my second final point, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course... Give way. Just before leaving the point he has made, I will go back to the example that Liberty go to the example that Liberty go to the committee. The example is built on a statement by the committee that there is no express dissension in there is no express dissension in full 16 between those who engage in such conduct as smugglers and those such conduct as smugglers and those who engage in such conduct as asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery or persons including children who may be coerced into carrying items such as phones.

I'm sure with his such as phones. I'm sure with his experience he will accept that is the case and it is trying to find a the case and it is trying to find a way of getting a balance so that we can deal with those who are creating the circumstances to smuggle people the circumstances to smuggle people in and out of this country, making money out of it, and those who are genuine, including children like the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one the committee describes. I think he has made half a good point there. The first point I agree point there. The first point I agree with him on people who are victims of modern slavery and we have got some groups of amendments later on which I think my noble friend which I think my noble friend Baroness May is going to move. In the example given in the report, and I'm afraid, sorry if this disappoints people but the fact the examples given by Liberty actually doesn't strengthen its case in my humble opinion, it makes it slightly less.

When I was immigration minister, Liberty spent its time trying to undermine our immigration legislation and actually argue for not protecting our borders and what they failed to understand, and this is an important point, if the British public don't think we have a robust immigration asylum system, then they become increasingly intolerant of protecting people that I believe should be protected. I think the way that you command wide public support for people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, and who we should be providing refuge for, is being clear that for those people that aren't entitled to that protection, we have the ability to stop them coming to our country and making a mockery of our system.

And organisations that are in favour of looking after genuine asylum seekers, and people who would meet the test of being a refugee, I think should some time to reflect that by being uncritical, as I'm afraid many are, about those people attempting to come to the UK, they damage the public's view and our ability to have a system that genuinely helps those that need that help. Because I'm afraid everyone gets laptop in the sense that the system isn't working.

The final point I would say is, I may have misunderstood the noble Lady and I'm very happy to take an intervention if have got it wrong, a couple of her amendments are probing on removing the defence and saying that what she wanted was the prosecution to have to make out the argument. She was saying that the current drafting people would have to prove their defence, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not my understanding of how this works. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of an offence.

And what legislation, as drafted, provides, is that there are defences that people can offer us to why they may have conducted themselves in a certain way. That doesn't require, unless I've misunderstood, the person themselves to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defence. All they have to do is, by setting out the defence, have at least a reasonable doubt raised with the court that they weren't guilty of the offence. And that seems to be without criminal justice system the right place to have the test.

I don't think legislation as currently drafted has the effect she thinks it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does and I'm happy to give way. We debated the reverse burden of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We debated the reverse burden of proof on the first day of committee. I certainly have not taken it from any of the briefings that I had or any of the briefings that I had or from previous occasions when we debated the reverse burden of proof debated the reverse burden of proof on other bills, that it was as he on other bills, that it was as he described it. As I understand it, described it. As I understand it, you are charged and then you have to put forward a defence if you believe put forward a defence if you believe you have a reasonable excuse.

In the you have a reasonable excuse. In the reasonable excuse is, if there is sufficient evidence of that matter to raise an issue, and that country it is not proof the under reasonable it is not proof the under reasonable doubt, so it throws putting, beyond doubt, so it throws putting, beyond reasonable doubt, onto the defence. Presumably the CPS in the usual way would have to believe that there is, would have to believe that there is, that the public interest test is met and so on.

But it does upend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

normal way that we do things. ... I have read through the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... I have read through the debate and I'm afraid I didn't agree with it then either. I just don't buy it then either. I just don't buy that that is what this does. The prosecution has to prove beyond a prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of the offence. Somebody is able in the legislation as drafted able in the legislation as drafted by the government, able to offer a defence and all they have to do for that defence to be successful is to that defence to be successful is to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

It seems that minds of the jury. It seems that doesn't reverse the burden of proof at all. Let me just pick up in the at all. Let me just pick up in the couple of minutes I have got left, just this point on the amendments about changing the knowing, about changing the knowing, suspecting, to intent or suspecting, to intent or recklessness. It seems that if you know something, or you suspect know something, or you suspect something, untoward is going to take place, that is a reasonably decent place, that is a reasonably decent idea, that you shouldn't really be doing it.

I think about lots of potential criminal offences, if I potential criminal offences, if I know somebody is going to commit a crime, or I suspect they are, it is proper not very wise if I provide them with equipment that would enable them to go and commit that crime. And I don't really see why would one that has to be much higher. What we are trying to do here, remember, is we're not actually crying to criminalise people thinking about this doing at all.

What we are trying to do is say, if you do this, you will be committing a criminal offence of. We would like you to do it. That is the purpose of this. Ministers would be delighted if they didn't have to prosecute anybody, may want to put in place a deterrent regime to stop them doing it. That is the objective of the legislation. Weakening it seems to me, you just remove that deterrent and we get back in the position we are in the first place where we don't have control of our borders, significant numbers of people are crossing the channel undertaking unsafe journeys and the British people have no confidence in our immigration and asylum system would act for damages it for legitimate refugees who we do want to provide proper reduction for but we can only do that if there is a system that demands public confidence.

-- Commands public comments. If understand what want to do here I respectfully asked the House shouldn't supporting the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Lady, we should stick to the wedding that we should stick to the wedding that is in the bill. -- Wording.
16:13
16:14
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lords to be testing the efficacy and appropriateness of new offences. I have read in detail the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, ably chaired by the noble Lord and I have even read the IrDA briefing on the bill which takes some doing if you come from the perspective I do -- ILP a. I can concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harper who has great experiences as a former Immigration Minister that one doesn't always take briefings of Liberty as the true gospel.

But the reason I am opposing these amendments is, I'm not convinced by the argument put forward by noble Lords, even in the JCHR report. I actually thought the JCHR report. I actually thought the comparison on page 10 was a specious comparison, when they compared it with terrorism offences. I didn't think that was an appropriate offence, frankly. I think it's quite right, to test the limits of the mens rea doctrine and the reverse evidential burden of proof contained evidential burden of proof contained But I think one has to look at the real world consequences of what would happen if we accepted these quite sweeping amendments, in terms of the interpretation by the judiciary and others.

Of an amended bill, with this wording in it. It would be, and I use the word well- meaning, I think it's well-meaning, and absolutely not noble to put forward these amendments, but there is A-level of naivete about the damaging implications of the bill. Being amended in this particular way. My Lords, the noble Lord Alton for whom I have great respect, and others, talked about the balance, I think this unbalances the bill. In many respects, the wording of this bill is not tough enough.

I think the government has made a huge strategic mistake in scrapping the Rwanda plan, it wasn't perfect, it was costly, I accept that, didn't deliver in the timescale, of what we all envisaged. I accept all that, but there has to be a Plan B, if you scrap plan a. But even allowing for that, this bill is trying to deal with a very significant public safety and security issue. That may even be considered an emergency, if the numbers keep rising.

So, I do not agree with the amendments, I think it would be wrong to alter the mens rea thresholds. The case hasn't been made for that. I would challenge the Minister, incidentally, on clause 13, three B1, the reasonable excuse. Because I do think that, in my mind, that is a get out clause too far, and there is a potential for it to become subject to abuse. And it's quite an unusual, I would say, not unique, but unusual subclause to put in a built, to single out certain ones, in classification, so in essence, my Lords, I oppose the amendments because they are designed, maybe not liberally, but they are designed to make prosecutions and enforcement more difficult to weaken and invalidate the legislation or at least the draft bill, as it now stands, to ignore the wider public interest, in preventing Illegal Immigration and the significant concern in uncontrolled immigration.

I think it disregards the geopolitical pressures around irregular or Illegal Immigration, it reduces the push factor, and increases the pull factor. Of people trafficking, for that business model. I business model of organised crime gangs. I know the noble Lady, Baroness Chakrabarti, will not like the next word, but it places this above the safety of citizens, and it removes account ability in decision-making and is key security and safety area. Even further away from the electorate, so for those reasons, my Lords, I don't think, of itself, these amendments standard, the case hasn't been made, in my opinion, by noble Lords, with all due respect.

I think it would be a damaging development to amend the bill in this way and for those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
16:20
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lords, it was not unexpected, what we just heard. In fact, obviously, and I understand that the Conservative benches want to stop everyone from coming across and making those dangerous crossings, which is what everyone would want to do, but it is necessary also, to think, it is quite surprising that here we are, debating how these matters will work between ourselves and France when the man holding the reins of the other half of this continent is in the next room to us telling members what he thinks on these matters.

So, I am going to ask what the noble Lord, the Minister, what he has heard so far on the issue of the exchange mechanism that has been trailed in our newspapers. Secondly, by the way, I should say thank you to my noble friend, Baroness Hamwee, for acting as the, I think would the Minister called, the super sub last week. When some of us were away working in the Counsel for Europe. On the issue of what this is about, these very particular amendments, first of all, it is my impression, and my reading on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that this particular set of amendments, these two amendments, were agreed unanimously, why all members, including the Conservatives.

If that is the case, it is not just simply a matter of people saying we want to try and stop this happening in broader terms, but there are Conservative members who have looked very closely to this particular part of the legislation. In trying to work out what is most appropriate, and have committed themselves to it. But in this House at the other house as this House at the other house as well. I think first of all, the issue which is raised by Lord Harper is having to prove yourself not guilty is not something we do in this country.

You have to prove yourself, you have to be charged, but you do not have to go into the case from the other end of it. But the issue here before us is what it will capture, in that state, between people who might or might not be guilty of what we are being charged guilty of what we are being charged with. I was lucky enough to go back a few weeks ago to France, and meet all the French authorities, downwards, right through to all the beaches.

One thing that was pointed out to me was a Catholic centre, where people were being helped, because of normal life. Help with food, they were being helped with getting appropriate clothing, and also being given SIM cards. Now, if a Catholic priest who was giving up the SIM cards is going to be caught by this legislation, then we ought to be very careful about the words we use. And the change is in the words 'intends that all notes and suspects that.' and the cases we are going to discuss later, the offences, which are very proper offences and very important offences, are really focused on the smugglers, and the smugglers getting 15 years in prison, which is what the maximum sentence is before us, and yet the only test of getting into that process is whether summary knows or suspects a relevant article will be used by a person in connection to an offence.

It is not that simple to simply say there is no link between the offence and the nature of the offence and the target for it. I'm hoping the noble Lord, the Minister, will tell us this is a very tricky issue but is something in respect of human rights, which has been reflected throughout our law, a law internationally, as well as the law of our own country. Both put together, and the international conventions, to which we were not just a signatory, but those we signed up to and created, not just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ECHR, but also others as well. With great care, if we are directing back to the burden of directing back to the burden of proof, he will know that this is not proof, he will know that this is not unusual. It is not uncommon, but not unprecedented. In the Criminal Justice Act, if someone is found with a blade in a public place, the prosecution proves possession, but prosecution proves possession, but the defendant must prove they had a good reason for possessing it.

The health and safety act at work 1974 places a burden on the defendant, to show they took all reasonable steps show they took all reasonable steps to avoid an offence. So, for such an important safety issue, surely you can see that it is not unusual and unprecedented for the government to unprecedented for the government to seek to take these matters and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation in the way they will. Neither of these noble Lords I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Neither of these noble Lords I think were in the House when we put forward the same arguments about burden of proof regarding blades burden of proof regarding blades and, I think I am right in saying, chemicals which could burn and chemicals which could burn and disfigure, which could also be disfigure, which could also be domestic. Asset, thank you, I knew there was a word for it! But we do not deny that there is examples on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the statute book, but we object to the time. I think the answer is in relation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the answer is in relation to the nature of the offence, which is before us. A 15 year maximum sentence is a very serious and very sentence is a very serious and very big crime to have committed. And just simply, the suspicious just simply, the suspicious threshold is seldom applying a threshold is seldom applying a criminal law, because such a low threshold, that the noble Lord was saying there were examples, but such a low threshold is a disproportionate response to someone disproportionate response to someone committing a crime which is, where someone has been not intended to commit a crime, with such a commit a crime, with such a disproportionate sense of harm they disproportionate sense of harm they might be doing.

So, can I just finish the sentence? The balance between the nature of the offence, and the nature of the judgement, and the nature of the judgement, which creates that defence, is what is disproportionate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is disproportionate. I think in this discussion, there is something that has been this is something that has been this year. Why the knife example you gave wasn't a good one. There are two parts to the test, in clause 13. Which is you have both got to have supplied the article but also you have got to knowingly or suspects the use it was going to be put. It is not going to be enough. It just show that you did the thing, the prosecution also has to prove you knew something or suspected something as well, so I don't think that's a good example, and I don't, therefore, think it flips the burden of proof around.

It still lies with the prosecution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can refer the member to the Hansard of the previous session, which I have already apologised for which I have already apologised for not being that because I was working with colleagues on immigration with colleagues on immigration matters in another polymer, of which this parliament is represented. So, this parliament is represented. So, I think -- In another Parliament. So, I think arguments last week, of which I am not apart, but simply to which I am not apart, but simply to say the relationship of the defence, and in this case, a threshold, which and in this case, a threshold, which has been put before, it is insignificant, is not significant, insignificant, is not significant, and I suspect that this will become something, which we will be treating something, which we will be treating and thinking about during the course of the whole bill this day, when we relate ourselves to the fact that this is meant to be aimed at the this is meant to be aimed at the smugglers.

One of the things that smugglers. One of the things that all the people on the north coast of France, who were representing all the different parts of the structure, who were trying to stop the people taking these dangerous the people taking these dangerous routes, was that they were concentrating on the smugglers, concentrating on the smugglers, everything was determined how they could get out the smugglers. And protecting human life and being humane in what they do as well for think the challenge is in this bill, as we go through, the noble Lord the Minister will give me, I hope, a helpful reply, on what the man in the extreme is saying.

Is the fact that this is a distinction between making very, very powerful offences for challenging those who are guilty of this horrible crime and taking people in terrible conditions, in what is very dangerous routes indeed. And just one final point about the messages that smugglers send, the messages smugglers sent to people, we will not be saying you may be careful, the British are changing their laws in these directions. They are much more intense, as are intent on those with phones in France, but what people should avoid doing, and what they should do, in terms of getting their journey.

That is really the whole challenge from the smugglers. But I would welcome the response from the JCHR on the reason why, unanimously,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they pose to pass these resolutions. Before the noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down, I'm grateful he entered on that note, because I wanted, for the sake note, because I wanted, for the sake of the record, to say over paragraph 1 to 52 were agreed unanimously, the entire report was not agreed entire report was not agreed unanimously, there were two members who voted against, one who abstain, but it was a very thorough report, and conducted, I might say, on all and conducted, I might say, on all sides, with a great deal of diligence and thoroughness, and all of my colleagues participated in that in a robust way, as the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in a robust way, as the noble I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. Just to bring
16:31
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
who have contributed. Just to bring a hopefully a bit of clarity do the latter discussion between Lord latter discussion between Lord Harper and Lord German, as I read it clause 13 in terms of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, sets out the first subsection the offence and it does so neatly, separating the act, offering to supply a relevant article, from the mens rea, which is knowledge or suspicion. Then subsection 2 goes on to state that it is an offence for a person charged with an offence under the section to show that they had a reasonable excuse and it was that subsection, subsection 2 that we debated at length at the last day on this bill.

It is at that point that the burden of proof shifts to the defence to prove their defence under the subsection. I'm very grateful to Lord Alton of Liverpool for bringing these amendments, it's proved to be a very stimulating debate. He is someone like others who have orally said this, I have immense amounts of respect for. Given his long and distinguished career. Grateful also to Baroness Hamwee. I listened very carefully to what they both said. I have to say find -- fundamentally disagree with the amendments they have brought however, they seek to alter the mens rea principle in 16 by replacing the standard of knowledge or suspicion that is currently let there with one of intent in the case of Lord Alton's amendments or belief in the case of the amendments from Lady Hamwee.

It doesn't seem to me to be in dispute that these amendments if passed would introduce a higher and more complex threshold for the mental elements of the offences and thereby raising the requirements for securing conviction. And making it significantly more difficult to hold to account those involved in supplying equipment for illegal crossings and other articles used in the facilitation of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. In doing so it would risk creating precisely the kind of ambiguity that organised criminal gangs thrive upon.

I think it's important to remind ourselves what this clause is designed to address, it's aimed at those who provide the tools that make dangerous, illegal crossings possible. Those who supply forged passports, false work permits, dinghies, outboard motors, that fuel the people smuggling trade. These individuals are the logistical agents of criminal networks responsible not only for undermining security of our borders, but also for endangering lives. Let us not forget that no more than 20,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats in 2025 alone and tragically, some have died in the attempt.

Fundamentally because the journeys are facilitated by those who care more about profit than human life. If we are to be serious about tackling this we must ensure that the legal framework is as robust and usable as possible. By replacing the standard of knowledge or suspicion with intentional believe prosecutors will be forced to demonstrate not merely that a person suspected their goods will be used for immigration crime but they positively intended or actively believed that they would be used as such and has a much higher bar.

One that would inevitably lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions and fewer disruptions to these dangerous criminal networks. The report, and it's a very thorough report from the joint committee, said that this standard, the current standard in the bill, is a low threshold compared to for example intentional recklessness. We note that comparable precursor terrorism offences have a higher mental element requiring intention to commit or assist in a commission of terrorist acts, I think I was crow -- quoted by Lord Alton.

As Lord Jackson correctly said, these terrorism offences are not precursors, are not comparable is. The mens rea test of knowledge, the one used in the spell, one that the noble Lord and the JCHR have criticised, is the same standard used in offences under the Immigration Act 1971, albeit about entry not supply of articles section 24 B1 that act says that people require leave the enter the kingdom under this act and knowingly enter without such leave commits an offence, the operative word here is knowingly.

This is the same standard applied to the offences and sections 24 A1 C1 D1 and E1, not to mention the same standard as a section 24 a, 25 and 25 a of the Immigration Act 1971. In short, existing immigration offences or use the test of knowledge to determine the mental element of an offence, it is therefore entirely consistent the offences in clauses 13, 14 and 16 to use the same test. These are not minor procedural safeguards, these are the tools we need to dismantle the infrastructure of people smuggling.

The law should be a shield for the vulnerable not a loophole for the criminals who exploit them and we have to construct strong legal framework, not one that is diluted and less able to protect vulnerable people as a result. Lord Harper made the point very powerfully that this is about creating a deterrent. We need to confront this threat with a strong legal arsenal not a weakened one and we should not be inserting language into this bill that makes it harder to prosecute those who supply the means for deadly journeys.

These are serious offences, with serious consequences and the law must reflect that seriousness. In this instance I oppose these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Alton and for the noble Baroness Hamwee for tabling the amendment Hamwee for tabling the amendment because it has stimulated a discussion on some important points
16:37
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
discussion on some important points that the House needs to consider. If I may I'm grateful also to noble Lords for attending this debate when such powerful alternative options are available, not you hundred metres, I will use metres instead of yards I normally would do, from the place where we now sit where the president of the Republic is addressing both Houses of Parliament. Lord German tempts me to discuss what the president of the Republic is currently saying, I will say to him that our relationship is very strong, that there are a number of issues we are expecting to make a positive statement on in the next couple of days, that we are working very closely and re-intensifying our activities on the northern coast.

If you allow me I will allow further discussions to take place prior to any announcements from this Dispatch Box about the outcome of any discussions between the Prime Minister and the government and the president of the Republic in due course. I'm sure we will return to those points when discussions have those points when discussions have taken place in a positive framework, and they will. I also if I may just start by saying to Lord Alton I welcome the JCHR report published on 20 June.

I want to thank the JCHR for its work, as he knows I given commitments that the government will respond in due course, I think is also work -- worth putting on the record that all measures in this bill are considered to be compliant U.K.'s human rights obligations including European Convention on Human Rights and that the government is fully committed to human rights both at home and abroad and as the Foreign Minister has made clear United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We will respond to those issues in due course but I want to just set that out at the beginning because it is important and it's part of the framework that the noble Lord has brought forward. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his moving of the amendment, he started by giving a couple of caveats, like him I'm a product of a council estate and proud of it. Like him, Latin passed me by my comprehensive school. I think some people did it but it did pass me by.

It doesn't mean that we cannot address the substance of the points that the noble Lord and noble Baroness have made. The important issues deserve full merit and consideration and amendments 31 and 41 changing mens rea in clauses 13 and 14 from knows or suspects to intends or is reckless as to whether, there's obviously findings from the JCHR, they did have the unanimous support, we will return to those in due course, but in bringing those amendments forward the CT style power is now more in line with the counterterror legislation which is what the noble Lord is intending, reasonable suspicion for me is the same threshold as for the offences sections 57, 58 of the Terrorism Act 2,000 and section 57 does not have a reasonable excuse defence, instead a The article was not for the purposes connecting with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

The section 57 and 58 offences contain no more safeguards and compared with the offences in clauses 13 and 14. The mens rea of the current drafting of the clause is designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster to disrupt these criminals gangs. The very point Lord Harper has alluded to. Day in and day out ruthless people and route ruthless people smugglers are putting vulnerable people in boats in the channel in the back of refrigerated lorries not caring they live or die, and as was mentioned by Lord Jackson of Peterborough people have died as a result.

Changing the mens rea to require the law enforcement to show intention of recklessness will place in my view undue pressure on those on the front lines of tackling organised immigration crime. And indeed slowdown the response to stopping these evil criminals undertaking their actions. It is right that we do whatever it is we can to support law enforcement in tackling these criminals at the earliest possible stages of criminality, for that reason disappointing I know will be to the noble Lord I cannot accept the amendments will stop if I look at the amendments 32, 42 and 53 which seek to change the mens rea for these offences for suspicion to believe, for both the supplying and handling of articles in connection with information offences amending this threshold will significantly raise the bar for enforcement.

That's the point that his Majesty's opposition frontbench have made comments one that Lord Jackson of Peterborough has made, Lord Harper has made and indeed Lord Green of Deddington. I find myself on occasions in company I'm not normally end, but it is right that if people are right and noble Lords make a sensible case, that support is welcome and on this occasion that support is welcome. A suspicion threshold allows for earlier preventative action which is a core feature of this legislation. It is designed to enable authorities to disrupt organised crime at the preparatory stage while still requiring a proper investigation into an individuals activity and not in anyway damaging the ability of a defence to put up a defence on the prosecutions case in due course.

The shift from suspected to belief would narrow the scope of these clauses and that might undermine their preventative purpose, reduce the chances successful prosecution in place a greater strain on investigated resources in the first place. It is important to note that the knows or suspects threshold is not novel, it is well established in UK criminal law especially in regimes aimed at early intervention, for example under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act you thousand two, professionals committed offences they know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering fails to make a disclosure.

Similarly section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2,000 criminalises failure to disclose information when someone believes or suspect it might be useful to prevent terrorism. In both, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the anti-terrorist, the mental threshold demand -- designed to trigger preventative action that have been consistently upheld in court as proportionate and compatible with both article 6 and article 7 of the Yates ER. Again I go back like EHC are full to go back to the point Lord Harper mentioned which is the offences in this bill server preventative purpose.

They are not about punishing people of the harm has occurred but instead about stopping harm from happening at all. I also want to speak to the concerns that the current offences might criminalise those acting innocently or for humanitarian reasons. Each of the relevant clauses includes the reasonable excuse defence, one which is not exhaustive and allows courts to consider the full context of the persons action, any good defence would bring forward those defences if again the thresholds were passed by the police and the CPS ringing prosecutions under any legislation was ultimately passed by both houses.

This is a very well recognised self safeguarding UK law and indeed Lord Cameron from the opposition frontbench raised in the House of Lords on the first day of this Committee stage that there is other comparable UK legislation whereby the burden of proof lies on the accused, for example the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 where they can be a burden on the accused to prove a reasonable excuse for why they had a controlled in their possession. This is also the case in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, bill which I served on in the House of Commons and similarly the Companies Act 2006 which requires an accused director to prove that all recent steps have And to think there is a common theme in many sides of the chamber that the courts are well equipped to assess whether someone has a legitimate reason for their actions and in practice the burden on the defendant is only to reason evidential basis for this use.

It is then for the prosecution to disprove. That's what prosecutions are about. They have to face the defences and have to prove as defences is wrong and the prosecution has to prove its case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me be clear. I would be grateful to the Noble Lord. Just to take to reasonable Lord. Just to take to reasonable excuse subclause three, I am sure he has got a view of why the wording is quite open ended stop if he reads it quite open ended stop if he reads it and it says the cases in which there was a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection 2 including, purposes of subsection 2 including, these are the keywords, but are not limited to those in which, including limited to those in which, including does not charge for its services, but without being too irreverent but without being too irreverent about this, Albanian people traffickers do not give you a standing order or direct debit.

There might be another way that payment can be made, but I think payment can be made, but I think that whole subclause is pretty open-ended. I just wonder if he has got any views on whether there is a potential that may be this is used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential that may be this is used and abused if it remains as it is on the face of the bill. The Noble Lord Jackson would expect me to defend the bill and we have taken judgements on the legislation, we have taken legal advice internally in the Home Office advice internally in the Home Office and we think that is a reasonable legislative framework for the operations that we are discussing in the bill. And the whole purpose of the bill we will discuss in later clauses the scrapping and that is preventative deterrent, but the whole purpose of the bill is to provide some measures of deterrence, and some measures of punitive punishment for offences that assist in the dangerous illegal crossings for individuals who face themselves in being trafficked very serious injury or potential death, so I want to be clear that these powers are not designed for indiscriminate use.

Investigations under these provisions will be intelligence led. There will be focused on enforcement. And their enablers. They are not on the migrants fleeing persecution or those acting for humanitarian motives. They are not theoretical reassurances in the House, there reflected in how this House, there reflected in how this will be operating. And in forces that are trying to stop the criminal gangs they will be using any potential legislation this House passes to ensure that we act as a deterrent, but therefore target those individuals who have created offences under this legislation.

They will have the potential to move forward a defence. Persecution will have the potential therefore to chop that defence to bits and to prove that the actions were malicious as under the legislation before us, so, in summary, these clauses I believe constrain strong safeguards. Including a list of nonexhaustive reasonable excuses to protect those who are acting legitimately and in good faith. These safeguards combined with the investigator indiscretion that is at the heart of the police focusing on the real potential criminals in this process and the prosecutions that are taken to the CPS and the prosecution test is for charging decisions to be made and therefore enforcement is, in my view, targeted, fair, and proportionate, and I hope the noble Lords will reflect on this point as we continue our scrutiny of the bill.

But I would urge both the Noble Lord and the noble Baroness to reflect on what I have said, to consider whether or not I have convinced them, that is a matter for them in due course, but, at the moment, I cannot accept those amendments, but I still give assurance to the Noble Lord that the report that he has produced will be examined and we will give a full response to that in due course, but at the moment I would urge the Noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
16:51
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
To the novel Lord Hanson of Flint the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this group of amendments, and for the thorough response that he has given to your Lordships in committee this afternoon for the avoidance of doubt, did me reiterate that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes the overall aims of the bill to deter organised crime and to prevent loss of life at sea and the Government does all it can to ensure there is a legislative framework in place to help eradicate this dangerous criminality.

As those that are spoken in the debate today are agreed upon that. And we should come to a judgement about whether it is preventative or a deterrent. Whether this will make any difference to those that will try and break these laws, while doing the right things to target this commonality. And drinking who were right but I grateful to what the Noble Lord has said in the report they have produced and many of the questions that we have rightly raised. Let me just say I am glad that organisations to the inquiry they do not always have to agree with the positions of particular NGOs or groups to know that they are part of the response to issues of this kind and we are very fortunate in a country like our own that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such organisations. With the agreement, I am grateful to him, let me be clear, I am to him, let me be clear, I am grateful to the organisations, I just do not agree with them. But I am very grateful that we live in a am very grateful that we live in a country where such organisations exist and have views, just to be clear, so I think that point we are in complete agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in complete agreement. Thank you to the Noble Lord for the other point that they have made and we are agreed about that. Let me thank his Noble Friend Lord Jackson thank his Noble Friend Lord Jackson and also those on the front bench for the way they put their arguments. I was not surprised by arguments. I was not surprised by those arguments. And in the ministry those arguments. And in the ministry at the last Government but we can disagree about some of these things without having a fallout over it.

I without having a fallout over it. I was also grateful to my Noble Friend and we do not really agree with many and we do not really agree with many of these questions but we do know there is a public conviction there is a public conviction something done with the illegality and I would argue the rules to and I would argue the rules to disagree about that and the route to tackling the main cause if I can sound like a broken record there are 122 million displaced people in the world today and that has doubled in the last decade and if we do not deal with the root causes we will go on introducing bills like this at nauseam and we still will not get to the root of dealing with the problem.

The noble Baroness presented the argument perfectly in the House as she always does and I strongly agreed with her answer that we are taking these actions on slight or no evidence that she said it does not require much for the prosecution. We must emasculate our laws or commitments to people like the refugee Convention and we must not emasculate our conviction to those things to try and tackle something that we all know needs to be tackled is a question of striking the right balance, but I have listened to what Noble Lord the Minister has said to the committee this afternoon.

It is right that we should all reflect on this and I will look forward to seeing what he has to say to the joint committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when he publishes his response, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments. Is a geologic pleasure that amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 32
16:55
None Portrait AMDT: 33 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 32 man not moved, that brings us to the substantial new group, Amendment 33.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all I look forward to the committee to bear with me as we look at the committee of human rights Amendment 33, 35, 38, 57, and 203 for consideration. Amendment 33 appears as amendment one in this and appears as amendment one in this and amend clause 13 page 7 line 12 at the end by inserting on the the end by inserting on the financial benefit directly or financial benefit directly or indirectly for that supply or office supply of irrelevant article.

It gives effect to the JCHR's gives effect to the JCHR's recommendation that the scope of the effects in clause 13 should only apply to persons involved for directions or indirect financial or directions or indirect financial or material gain. And I have already described in the earlier group of amendments how clauses 13 to 17 of the bill create new offences to the bill create new offences to target the activities and facilitators of criminal gangs who facilitators of criminal gangs who look to profit from organised immigration and crime.38 and 50 of immigration and crime.38 and 50 of the report conclude that the birth of their precursor offences captured in those clauses of the bill risks and intended harm to those who are most vulnerable and it risks inadvertently criminalising persons who are not to be protected from criminal penalty, ultimately the scope of the offence is, therefore, broad, and we should, at least, consider that.

A 51 of the report recommends the Government should give consideration to amending the scope to ensure they only apply to persons involved in the smuggling of those persons for direct or indirect financial or material gain, and that's what this amendment seeks to achieve. I refer again to the evidenced examples from the ILPA on how the scope of these offences might apply to those who are not might apply to those who are not smugglers. Amendment 35 recalls line 15 inserts the purpose of subsection 2 in the defence of reasonable excuse must be interpreted in accordance with article 31 of the UN Convention relating to the status of Convention relating to the status of 1951, article 5 of the protocol in section 26 that the Council of Europe Convention on trafficking in human beings too thousand and five, all of which this country is delivered to.

The country in these recommendations but the defence of reasonable excuse in clause 13 must be interpreted compatibly with the UK international legal obligations. Not to penalised refugees, smother persons, or the victims of trafficking in certain circumstances. Clauses 13 and 14 both provide for a reasonable excuse to the aforementioned precursor offences which are nonexhaustive, offences which are nonexhaustive, those include actions to rescue a person from danger or serious harm, actions taken on behalf of of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers for free, not making money on the exercise and the rationale for strengthening that is explained in the recommendations of paragraph 51 of the report.

In alignment with paragraph 51 that, and I quote, the defence of a reasonable excuse to explicitly provide that it must be interpreted compatibly with article 31 of the refugee Convention, article 5 of the smuggling protocol, and section 26 of the Council of Europe Convention against trafficking, hence amendment 35. We recall article 31 prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their own unlawful entry and presence in the country where they claim asylum. This protection applies to refugees who, quote, come directly from the state where they first faced prosecution.

In September 2024, the United Nations, by commission of refugees, published a legal guidance of international protection related to non-penalisation of refugees on account of regular entry. That knowledge is in seeking asylum many knowledge is in seeking asylum many are compelled to arrive into or stay in a territory without authorisation or documentation or, and I quote, with documentation that is insufficient, fast, or obtained by fraudulent means, or by using clandestine models of victory. Article 5 of the protocols against smuggling of migrants by land, sea, or air, provides that migrants should not be liable for criminal prosecution for the fact of having been smuggled with intent by persons in order to obtain directly or indirectly financial or other indirectly financial or other material benefits.

Article 26 of the Provides none punishment provision for the trafficking of those engaged in illegal activities provided they had not been able to do so year later on as the Noble Lord mentioned in his remarks earlier on we will be hearing from Baroness May on the subject of human trafficking later. In circumstances where victims of trafficking have committed an offence of supplying or handling relevant articles or collecting information likely to be useful in immigration crime, they mustn't be prosecuted if the permission of these offences was as a result of trafficking.

Any prosecution with victims in such circumstances would While the government has put forward the commendable aim of disrupting the criminal networks engaged in smuggling people to the UK, Professor Sarah Singer said law and evidence to our committee I quote, these offences will not be targeted at the people who conduct people smuggling operations, most of whom have never set foot UK soil and will not be reached by the new offences, rather he will be targeted the very vulnerable people who are seeking asylum in this country and making these regular journeys because they have no other option.

That at 38 which appears in the JCHR report, the clause of if inserts if derives directly or indirectly from the handling of relevant article. This amendment gives effect to our recommendation that the scope of the offence and clause 14 should only apply to persons involved in the smuggling of persons for direct or indirect financial or material gain. Paragraphs 38 and 50 of the JCHR report concluded that the breadth of the precursor offences captured in clauses 13 and 17 of the bill do risk unintended harms those who are most vulnerable and risks inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty ultimately the criminal penalty ultimately the criminal penalty ultimately the Paragraph 51 of the JCHR report recommends that the government should give consideration to amending the scope of the offences to ensure that they only apply to persons involved in the smuggling of persons for direct or indirect financial or material gain and that is what this amendment seeks to achieve.

Turning to amendment 44, achieve. Turning to amendment 44, clause 14 page 8 line 14 and that section insert the words for the purpose of subsection 3 the defence of reasonable excuse must be of reasonable excuse must be interpreted compatibly with article 31 of the UN can relating to the status of refugees 1951, article 5 of the protocol of smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air 2,000 in section 26 of the Council of Europe Convention in action against trafficking in human beings 2005.

That amendment gives effect to the JCHR recommendations but the defence of reasonable excuse in clause 14 must be interpreted compatibly with U.K.'s legal obligations not to penalised refugees, smuggled persons and victims of trafficking. This has
17:03
None Portrait Amendment: 33 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

the same effect as amendment 35 but it's in a different clause and which I worry spoken to. And ultimately, let me say a word about amendment 57. As the committee knows clause 16 creates the offence of collecting information for use in immigration client crime. Clause 16 provides for two defences. The first defence requires the person to show that the action or possession was for the purposes of a journey made only by them and the second requires the person to show that they had a reasonable excuse.

However paragraph 27 of the JCHR report highlights that whilst the list of what counts as reasonable excuse in the bill is not exhaustive, those seeking asylum or the family members of those seeking asylum are not provided with an express defence, once again I cite Professor Sarah Singer's evidence which I referred to in connection with amendment 35 and I won't therefore repeated. Finally I turn to amendment 203 in this group, it appears as amendment seven the JCHR report and the arguments as set out on page 20 of the report.

It would insert a new clause, in brief section 31 of the immigration and Asylum act 1999 provides a statutory defence for refugees committing particular offences, providing they satisfy stated conditions and specified offences include forgery, connected uses, use of deception to obtain or seek to obtain leave to obtain or seek to obtain leave to enter or remain, or to secure avoidance postponement or revocation of enforcement action, falsification of documents and offences under the identity documents that 2010.

Paragraph 44 of the JCHR report notes, the recommendation that the predecessor committee, the previous JCHR committee, section 31 should be amended to cover all offences amended to cover all offences relating to unauthorised. Our report states I quote, domestic law would offer no statutory defence those prosecuted for these new offences or for the underlying offences of illegal entry, rivalry assisting unlawful migration. This is again in intended to ensure compliance with article 31 of the Refugee Convention and to address what the UNHCR has previously described as their words, deep concern about limitation of section 31 defences.

Let me recall that article 31 prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. This protection applies to refugees who come directly from the state where they face persecution. Amendment gives effect to the JCHR recommendations that the offences in clause 13, 14 and 16 of the bill, as well as the offence of illegal entry under section 24 of the immigration act 1971 should be added to section 31 of the immigration and Asylum act 1999 which provides a statutory defence refugees in certain some consensus.

I'm very grateful to the committee for bearing with me it's a long group of amendments, I try to describe as briefly as I can what is in them but I recognise there is a lot that you consider. I hope the noble Lord will at least think about taking these away to look at them further between now and report but in any event I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. In clause 13 page 7, at line 12 insert the words page 7, at line 12 insert the words as printed in the marshalled List. The question is that this amendment
17:07
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
is agree to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Almost all of the of Lord Alton's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Almost all of the of Lord Alton's amendments. I said to him yesterday that I thought that the committees that I thought that the committees work, I thought carefully about this work, I thought carefully about this word, painstaking. The name of my noble friend's Lord German's name noble friend's Lord German's name are not on a couple of the amendments because he and I had already tabled amendments on the already tabled amendments on the same point. When Lord Alton went down and my noble friend will pursue down and my noble friend will pursue the point of the defence of not doing an action if it was not doing doing an action if it was not doing so for financial gain.

The same point in effect as Lord Alton has point in effect as Lord Alton has made. As my noble friend said and I think we're going to go on saying this, the clauses in this bill should not sweep up asylum seekers, should not sweep up asylum seekers, one could also describe as victims one could also describe as victims of smugglers. I have amendment 51 a which I picked out up from the JCHR report to add to the list of accepted articles in clause 15.

One of the things that people I'm thinking of asylum seekers now, in this situation must feel that they are losing is their dignity. The JCHR suggest adding, I use this word at a minimum, hygiene. I think that if one is without hygiene products it adds to one's sense of loss of dignity, loss of looking after oneself as a real person with the proper place in the world, and so on. It is a matter of proportionality stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact that initially was specifically raised was raid by specifically raised was raid by member of Parliament for Leeds who encouraged us to include those words about hygiene that it was based on exactly what noble Baronesses just said about how concern for human dignity we talk a lot during his debates about human rights but let's also remember human dignity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also remember human dignity Think one has a right to human to Italy actually. That's probably a Italy actually. That's probably a point on which I could stop and
17:10
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this amendment. If I may, again I thank Lord Alton and the committee for the very thorough discussion they have taken on these issues and the amendment, I got three points to make and what he said and he will be pleased at least one of them is some measure of agreement, or at least I think you will be pleased. The piece I do have some measure of agreement, the amendments that talk about those that have been trafficked, I think it's quite important language put here on trafficking and smuggling.

I do make a distinction between those that have chosen to pay people smugglers to facilitate their journey across the channel and their entry into the United Kingdom, and those that have been forced to do so against their will. I have more sympathy for that aspect the noble Lord is talking about. I think where they aren't party to their trafficking and I think use of the word trafficking in this case is very important, I do think there is a distinction there.

I am more sympathetic to that. As the amendments are currently drafted they sweep up a number of conventions and I'm just about to move on to the bit where I part company with him, but I think if you were to come back later when, or the Minister were to come back with something that tightened up the protection for those that are trafficked I think that would be welcome. The bit where I part company is, the extensive discussion and to be fair to the joint committee, it acknowledges that there are different views on this, is the piece about article 31 of the Refugee Convention and the piece which she talked about which protects refugees who come directly from the state where they face persecution, and there is to be fair very extensive discussion in the Joint committees report work talks about what is coming directly mean and the extent to which you are allowed to have a stopover brief or not, and to be fair it does say that is not a view, it quotes legal views that a brief stopover for example a stopover in France does not stop people coming to the United Kingdom, but does also say that is not a view universally shared.

I have to say is not a view shared by myself and I think it's one of the reasons I think why the public find this issue so troubling. I don't think the public have a problem with people who do come directly from a state in which they flee persecution and where we give them support. I cover two examples where I accept there were safe and legal route, certainly when I was a member of Parliament I had literally nobody in my former constituency have a problem with the route that we created to protect those fleeing from Ukraine.

Not a single person ever wrote to me I don't think I'm correct in saying, complaining about that because they saw they were coming directly from a country that was at war that had been invaded, and we created a route and they supported that. Similarly we had a scheme which enabled people who were fleeing from the communist regime in Hong Kong who we had a historical obligation to to come to the United Kingdom. The reason why this is a problem is that you have got people in either France or have come through a number, not just one country a number of European countries across land, you've entered European Union in Greece, have come through a number of safe countries, spend quite a bit of time in France and then make a journey United Kingdom, I think a lot of people feel that is not the situation that was envisaged by the Refugee Convention and they feel that is our country being taken advantage of, and I think that is what causes this pushback.

I think this is what this bill is trying to stop, and I think there is a legitimate debate about that. Perhaps it may be that one of the things we need to do is to have a sensible international discussion about whether the 51 Convention is fit for purpose in the circumstances that the noble Lord sets out where there are 120 million or so people were refugees, they cannot all be accommodated in countries like the United Kingdom. If we were to try and do that we would find there was no support amongst the public and we would stop people had a legitimate the reason to be here.

The final point I would make was actually to say there is one part of the reasonable defence thing here, where I think perhaps the government is being a little bit too generous. I think there are people who do not charge for their services who are genuinely well-meaning, there are the people who fundamentally do not agree with having borders, having immigration rules and sticking to them. I do actually think that the rules in the bill are little bit to generous, I think if you have organisations, they don't have to charge people, they do have to be party to smuggling gangs, but organisations that are set up in France to make it easier for people to make those journeys, I don't think should be able to be let off any culpability in this whether or not they are charging for those services for top if you know people are making journeys which are unlawful which are dangerous, if you are helping people do that I do think we should try and deter you there is a legitimate argument about whether this bill gets everything right and it may be people can argue the penalties are too harsh or this is in the right way of doing it but is in the right way of doing it but Just to go back to the topical point that the Noble Lord the Minister mentioned, the president of the French Republic being a mile away from us in this bill, and is not any more, but was, I think that the French Government find it quite irritating when they're trying to work the British Government on trying to clampdown on this, that there are organisations from the United Kingdom who set themselves up and spent all of the time trying to make it more difficult for the French Government to work with the British Government to stop people crossing the channel.

And I not sure that we want to give a bracket immunity to all of those people. Some of them are genuinely well- meaning humanitarians. Some of them fundamentally do not agree that we should have orders, border controls and sensible regimes. And yes, they do not charge for their services, but I do think they are doing good work, supported by the broad mass of the public and date may not be swept up by these offences but I do think we should think about how we deter them from conducting those that help facilitate and maybe they do not want to do this but it does help facilitate this organised immigration crime, whether or not that is intentional.

I am afraid I cannot support most of the amendments, but I do think the point he has got about those is worthy of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration in the later stages of consideration of the bill. Not being able to attend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not being able to attend the first day of committee, I was part
17:18
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
first day of committee, I was part of the UK delegation of the council of Europe and I did speak of course at second reading. Sadly, I now it seems after the debate in the previous group I have to declare an interest as the former director of Liberty. It is not something I do very often but given some of the disparaging remarks I thought I had better declare that as some kind of interest because, apparently, to work for a cross-party human rights engineer is now an issue.

I should add that in my many years of working at the National Council for Civil Liberties, I worked across this House and in The Other Place, including with some very senior Conservatives who very much believed in fundamental rights and freedoms, and I guess that was then and this, unfortunately, is now. Also, as a preliminary point on the previous group, we are slightly flummoxed, I have to be honest, by contributions from across the committee on the offence on the clause 13 offence and defence is because, actually, forgive me, I have only been a lawyer for just over 30 years, but it is easier to prove that I was reckless in my behaviour than it is to prove that I had knowledge or suspicion, so that means if I am right about that then I am flummoxed by every contribution around the committee on whether it should be knowledge and suspicion or intention and recklessness.

That was the previous cloak. In relation to this group, I have two commend the Noble Lord and his committee for some amendments, and, indeed, the noble Baroness for amendments that, actually, square very well with at least the platitude but at least the caveat to his other comments that the Noble Lord Harper made that he does care about genuine refugees. So, if I am to take that as a real commitment to genuine refugees that are not competing or playing any system but are in peril in their own country and fully in persecution, if that is the commitment and I know that it is the commitment from my Noble Friend the Minister, then I would suggest that none of the amendments in this particular group, not one of them contradicts that intention that it is about going for the smugglers, going for the traffickers, going for the people who are making money out of people's desperation.

Going for them but not going for innocence. Now, of course, the nature of protecting refugees is that you do not know who actually will turn out to be a conventional refugee until you process them, which means you have to be a little bit careful about how you go after the people who are coming before you have actually considered it. And to go back to various comments that have been made about the historical origins of the refugee Convention, I would just remind the committee that this was the world's apology for the Holocaust.

And the people who fled the Nazis in the 1930s often had to do so by irregular and clandestinely means. And to those who need a reminder, I recommend the 1977 Oscar-winning film starring Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave, Fred Zimmerman, Julia. And I think it would not be able thing for every participant in this committee to revisit that Oscar-winning film in perhaps over the recess before coming back for many more hours of deliberation on this bill.

So, why these amendments are good ones, in my opinion, and where they do not And that they make clear firstly that they are going after the people who are monetising this desperation, and actually perpetrating the trade and putting people's lives at risk and putting people's lives at risk in each channel and that is put squarely by these amendments on the face of the bill. The second thing I would say is the references to the refugee convention which I know will raise some hackles from the benches opposite.

I would say that I believe it is the government's attention to comply with the convention of human rights which has to be dealt with on the front cover of the ill as per the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Act will also be the interpretive method for looking at the bill, but there was not anything like that for the refugee Convention stop at their is, instead, is a tradition that was put out by a previous conservative Government in the asylum and in appeals act of 1993.

Check the date, Conservative Government, I think, if I have my history right. As a conservative Government, that introduced the principle, initially, into the integration rules, that they were, the refugee Convention has privacy in the context of treating refugees because the intention of that Conservative Government and previous Conservative Governments was to comply not just with the European human rights with the refugee convention as well. And, of course, because we have moved towards more because we have moved towards more criminalisation in this context, not just considering claims and appeals and removals, but moving into criminalisation, then become significant and important that the refugee Convention provides a defence to various immigration offences that have subsequently been created.

And that is why, in my opinion, the Joint committees rights, a wonderful institution of rights, a wonderful institution of this Parliament, steps in to make sure that nothing, no prosecution, no conviction, under any of these offences, will offend the refugee Convention. And, I can put it no better, than the Noble Lord ultimately said, we do not need to be using these offences. It cannot be the government's intention that these offences and these prosecutions are for the victims rather than the smugglers.

With that, comment, I think that is the best comment I can make in support of this group. And I really, really, and finally, to the Noble Lady Baroness Hogg over who is a long- term advocate of the most vulnerable people and refugees in particular, I think she has an obvious point about feminine hygiene products. It would be strangely gendered, I think, for the Government not to consider adding that a food et cetera. And I commend all of these immense to the committee.
17:26
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
It was my Noble Friend how about that made an excellent contribution that made an excellent contribution but I cannot let the noble Ladies peroration go without some response. Her arguments would carry somewhat more weight had she not resisted every attempt for a pragmatic, practical approach to the protection of our orders in the safety and security of the country that is the first duty of the Government, through many, many pieces of legislation, not least of the Rwanda bill.

Which later became an act which many of us were involved in over the last couple of years. But she, and others like her, the noble Lords, had never done that. They never conceded that this issue, that they want to go forward with this cannot Conservative party Government and opposition swung to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Noble Lord for giving way. Can I just say two for giving way. Can I just say two things? Firstly, I pointed out, for things? Firstly, I pointed out, for example, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act of 1993 which is a piece of Conservative legislation will stop I could have gone on. I stop I could have gone on. I understand about the declaration being too long already. But if we just compare the minutes afterwards in hindsight of how long people are in hindsight of how long people are banging on.

So, I was trying to point to the tradition that is a point to the tradition that is a very long and noble tradition in the very long and noble tradition in the noble Lords party for caring about the refugee convention, and I tried to do what the Noble Lord Harper suggested that we must do, which is to differentiate between genuine refugees who need to get here and then need to be processed and considered before you can separate and the second point that I would and the second point that I would just say yes just because the messenger is unattractive to you, do not let that be to the disadvantage not let that be to the disadvantage of the amendment.

Do not look at me. of the amendment. Do not look at me. Try to ignore me. And just consider the actual amendment, in detail, and the actual amendment, in detail, and I suggesting to the Noble Lord that those amendments do not offend his ambition of controlling the borders and the Noble Lord Harper's ambition of differentiating between perpetrators and gamers of the system and people who may well turn out to be genuine refugees. The Noble Lord Harper made points about the public on many occasions, and the warmth that they have towards desperate Ukrainians and all I would say is that those people were rightly given safe and legal routes to the United Kingdom in a way that Afghans, Sudanese people, and others in equally dire straits were not.

And it was always understood by the drafters of the refugee convention that might happen and there might be some desperate people who have to flee by a regular roots and they do not know who is a refugee and who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was not until you have considered their claim. We do not deprecate the noble Ladies remarks will stop I find her always very passionate and compelling. And I think that she compelling. And I think that she compelling. And I think that she added greatly to the strength, the colour, and the nuance of the debates that we had over the last debates that we had over the last two years on the bill and other legislation. So, I am not shooting legislation.

So, I am not shooting the messenger. But she actually pre-empts my comment because I was pre-empts my comment because I was going to say that my party has had an outward -looking internationalist an outward -looking internationalist small approach to recruiting or bringing into this country the priorities to the best going way back when we took in Ugandan back when we took in Ugandan refugees that were expelled by the refugees that were expelled by the Asian folk from the Indian subcontinent as the Noble Lady says, subcontinent as the Noble Lady says, Syrians, Ukrainian, Hong Kong, we do have a very proud record in terms of have a very proud record in terms of welcoming people from different cultures, but I do think it is cultures, but I do think it is important, also, to make the point that it is not strange that nine countries and the European Union are demanding that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights are visited because they are simply not working because you're not equal to the geopolitical challenges alluded to by the Noble Lord Walton of Liverpool in terms of the mass movement of people.

And I have to say that the Noble Lady fetishise of the 1951 Convention on refugees. It was, again, of course, brought into being for the right reason. Because of the world having to make amends in a practical way for the horror, the death, of millions of people in the Second World War and particularly the Holocaust and I understand that. But now in the era of transnational travel, telephonic communications, of the internet, of advances in science and transportation, and serious organised crime and people traffickers.

It is not fit for purpose. And it is not ignoble for Doesn't Doesn't turn Doesn't turn out to Doesn't turn out to be Doesn't turn out to be a Doesn't turn out to be a refugee Doesn't turn out to be a refugee in the Conventions principles are non- penalisation and non-reform and I think, whatever other defects the committee ought to be able to unite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around this principle. Before I look at the specific critique of the amendments put forward I take on face value the forward I take on face value the noble Ladies comments but I know noble Ladies comments but I know that those on the other side when my party was in government and the Liberal Democrats and many crossbenchers did take issue with crossbenchers did take issue with age verification tests, with other attempts by the state to determine attempts by the state to determine the bona fides of people in respect the bona fides of people in respect of their age, their background and whether they were truly subject to whether they were truly subject to oppression or mistreatment or the misuse of the criminal system in their countries, but at every step their countries, but at every step it was opposed so has proven difficult as Lord Harper said difficult as Lord Harper said commandos who are deaf genuinely in need of our support.

By the way I support of course Lady Hamwee is very sensible amendment about dignity products, of course any sensible sent 70 and caring compassionate person would do compassionate person would do circles up I would finally end my slightly odd preface to these comments by saying we do have responsibility, we are not elected but we should nevertheless reflect very serious significant concern amongst the public's about these issues will stop they would be many people would be horrified by this otherworldly obsession on the minutiae of amendments when we have a national crisis affecting our borders and the safety and security of our country.

I do think we have a responsibility to address that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is committee and this is where we do look at the minutiae of where we do look at the minutiae of amendments. I just plead with the noble Lord Jackson to look at the noble Lord Jackson to look at the amendments in this group and to look at my suggestion that they do not at my suggestion that they do not offend his ambition to control the offend his ambition to control the borders and to differentiate between people gaming the system, people monetising an evil trade and those monetising an evil trade and those monetising an evil trade and those who are victims of trafficking, who are potentially genuine refugees and are potentially genuine refugees and so on.

As I say it's not about what I have said in the past, who I am,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have said in the past, who I am, the NGOs you don't like, it's about the specific amendments because this is committee in the House of Lords. I'm aware of that but I merely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm aware of that but I merely drawing your Lordships attention to the fact that there are real-world consequences of the interpretation consequences of the interpretation of the legislation when it finally gets Royal Assent and becomes an act. As has been said by Lord Harper, there are other individual Harper, there are other individual groups who have a vested interest, perhaps for the right reasons, to not take security and safety of our border, they are perfectly entitled to believe in there being no borders underrate very loose and liberal interpretation of immigration policy.

But we must be careful when we legislate that we don't allow those people who are massively out of step with the views of most of the public, to put on the face of the bill through the advocacy something that will be not in the long-term best interests. I finish by, I cannot add anything more to the excellent points on amendment 33 that my noble friend made, but can I just say 35 and amendment 44 I oppose it because on the face of it it looks beguilingly attractive that of course we should not be in breach of international treaty obligations which we have signed.

My concern is that this is a movable feast and to put on the face of the bill quite a prescriptive and tight and Draconian interpretation of an international regime which may very well change over the next years, I've no doubt that the 1951 treaty on refugees will evolve for the better hopefully, and certainly the ECHR will also be reviewed and will evolve to the batter because it's not just people in the UK are concerned about it.

For those reasons I do think that it's not appropriate that those amendments on the face of the bill, they are well meant and they do make a strong argument but I do think that it would tie the hands of our own judiciary, it would tie the hands of ministers and for that reason I give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the noble Lord. Don't detain the committee now but will he get some point between but will he get some point between now and report have a conversation at least with me about what he thinks is Draconian in these international conventions to which international conventions to which we are already a signatory, and to which these amendment simply will which these amendment simply will ensure that we act upon in the way that suggested and things that we are already signed up to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

are already signed up to. More than happy to have a conversation with my honourable conversation with my honourable friend the noble Lord. But as the Minister himself said not that long ago, the bill as a whole in its ago, the bill as a whole in its entirety is compliant. With the entirety is compliant. With the current legislation in respect of Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights, and so I do think it's too restrictive to put think it's too restrictive to put this particular stand-alone amendment on the face of the bill amendment on the face of the bill and I think it would also encourage what I had described before its judicial activism in terms of, which judicial activism in terms of, which we have seen in the immigration tribunal and has been featured in the daily Telegraph quite regularly.

I don't think that's helpful, it would undermine faith and trust people have in the Criminal Justice System command for that reason I don't think the bill should be amended in the way that the noble Lord proposes, but of course I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always happy to be persuaded by him. Noble Lords will be aware that I
17:39
17:40
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
remember then the appalling attacks that one had supporting Ted Heath and the Conservative government at the time, so I want to underline the long history of Conservatives being supportive of proper attitudes towards human rights and asylum. But I don't think it helps us in this discussion if we miss out two different things. The first is that we do need to support international agreements because this is not going to get any easier. Indeed if I don't bore the House for the question of climate change, if anybody actually thinks we've got real problems of immigration now, the kind of weather changes we are going to have will mean that there will be a lot more people won't be moving for economic reasons, they will be moving because they can no longer live where they are born.

We have to realise how serious the issue of immigration right across-the-board is going to be. That means, and I think one has to take this very seriously, that means that we should be very careful about detecting the rights of asylum seekers. We didn't just do this because of the Holocaust, though that was the approximate pressure. It is that there are people who are treated in the way which makes life in their countries absolutely impossible, and they cannot leave by some accepted rule, open system, they have to hide and escape.

And we need to take them very seriously. I understand the other thing that we have to remember is that there is widespread concern about the number of immigrants that have come into this country and who are likely to come into this country and this House must not ignore that fact. If we are going to accept both those things we really do have to be very careful that legislation that we pass this first of all truly consonant with the international agreements which we have, and we also have two be extremely careful that we don't say that every time there is an amendment, that somehow or other there is something unsuitable behind it.

If these amendment are very technical, I don't actually agree with all of them, but I do think the House has to accept they are important and that you dismiss them as if they were merely the product of people who always oppose any kind of restraint on immigration seems to me to be both unfair and unworthy. I also happen to think that there were also happen to think that there were many of us who oppose the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of rubbish, because it wasn't going to work, and that's why we opposed it, not because we didn't understand the importance, it was because this was not the right answer.

And frankly to suggest that because we didn't agree with the Rwanda concept is somehow or other wet on the subject seems to me to be not true and very unfair. We are surely in this House in them business of discussing these matters in detail and very carefully. Lady Chakrabarti particularly Lord Alton have rightly brought to our notice some important issues which we have got to get right. They may not be the right amendments, but we do have to discuss them and we have to discuss them without automatically believing that all Lord Alton who has a long history of defending those who aren't otherwise defended has brought to our notice.

I'm pleased we've been discussing it, I think we will find that he will withdraw them and think again about which ones he wishes to press and I do hope that we will treat this with the seriousness that it deserves which means first recognising the national concern about numbers, and secondly trying to make a proper distinction which protects people who flee from terrible regimes. I just would like everybody in this House to think once again how best we are that we are not in that, -- position, and if we are blessed in that way we should think very carefully about those who are not.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every time I speak after the Lord the bitten spoke and I feel as though I have taken on the headmaster having been admonished.
17:45
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
headmaster having been admonished. So I tread carefully. This has been actually a group amendment that I wanted to comment on from the beginning very briefly. I think the fact that it's become quite fractious in some ways and quite animated would indicate what my original concerns are and why wanted to ask the noble Lord Lord Alton of In his opening remarks he made the point that you want the House that in the enthusiasm to smash the gangs and control our borders, in the enthusiasm to do that, he said, I am paraphrasing, we must not emasculate our Lord such as the refugee Convention of 1951.

Can I put a different concern that I have? I want to know if it is possible to square this circle. Because I am concerned about that international a such as the refugee Convention, which I consider to be outdated, are often used to emasculate our domestic laws and emasculate them more appropriately in this discussion. Emasculate any Government of any parties ability to make new laws, so there is a difficulty here, in the refugee Convention it did emerge in a very different way and I think even as we have heard the contributions here, I am not convinced and all of the debates I have been in since I have been in the House on any aspect of asylum that we would all agree on what refugee even means, and the realistic definition.

We have this kind of ambivalence about what, or rather that there is a complete confusion, at that moment, in the small boats. That is one of the things that is happening. Therefore, things that is happening. Therefore, a broad question then is the noble Baroness because I do worry and I just wondered if they could clarify how we avoid this question were we have to kind of choose between the smugglers or the victims because I do think that it is really unhelpful if we all only ever see people as victims.

First of all, I am going to finish in a minute. I think there is always a danger that we only see people as victims of smugglers, that area, they would deny their agency, because if there's one thing that we think will get on the nerves of the British public it is the feeling that the people have been duped in that way, that there are so obviously some people who are playing the system. Just because they're playing the system it does not mean that they are evil.

With Young men who might be playing a fast want to get here, would be better than where they are coming from. That is not the point, is it? Unless we are going to give British citizenship on the basis of that. So, how do we actually deal with that? Because I do think it is very important that we stop being so binary about this, and the truth of the matter is that the refugee to go back to my original point, the refugee Convention does not help us here.

Because the truth of the matter is that there is a situation, a national crisis, in which undocumented people are arriving in the country, the day after the in adversary. We note the potential security problems there. It means we have no control with the border, and, to that credit, the Government are trying to do something about it. I might have criticisms of the bill, but there is an attempt to say this can't go on, and if then either the refugee Convention or the refugee Convention or the international or, basically, the burden whether guilt is thrown upon any of us that are worried about that and so many do not care about people who are genuinely fleeing or that we do not care but international law this, that or the other.

If that happens, we are not going to get anywhere, we are not going to solve the problem, and that is trail for the British public, to be honest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just make one particular point? Because we are here to discuss whether or not these discuss whether or not these amendments are going to work if they amendments are going to work if they
17:50
17:51
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that they are aimed at the particular people who are raising this and the focus has to be that it helps law-enforcement and the judiciary to be able to focus their resources on the people that the Government really wants to apprehend in order to tackle the criminal gangs. Now, there are words in here but I will come to in a moment, I agree that a different definition might be more helpful. But I think it worthwhile repeating the words about international regulations and rules that we guide ourselves and put around ourselves the importance of that.

There is a mistake by the way, and I am reluctant to go into the field of the reinterpreting the ECHR. What has happened was that some countries signed an unaddressed letter that had no indication whatsoever what they were looking for in changes to the ECHR. The person that was supposed to receive it actually read about it in the newspapers. And I contrast that arrangement where nothing could be made of the letters because, basically, they did not have any sense of what was trying to be changed.

The approach of the British Secretary of State for Justice who approached this matter in a proper manner and spoke to the people who were concerned of the red Council of Ministers and who were responsible for any review of what happens there. And there is already a set of motions in place in order to be able to enable that discussion to occur. So, it would be worthwhile trying to understand what it is that other people in other countries want to do and what they need to have a change.

Those discussions, essentially, these things are in the document, and they need to be changed and interpreted and looked at as time goes by. And that is happening at the present moment. So, I think we could just be clear that what these amendments are doing is simply to treat the people who are coming here with a bit of compassion. I absolutely agree that we have to absolutely agree that we have to separate genuine asylum seekers for the rest.

We cannot do that by our own legislation, until they arrive here. And there are no routes by people arrive here apart from the few that affect people not from the countries that are most affected in this matter, so what makes sense of these amendments, maybe not entirely in those words but what makes sense of them is that they are trying to distinguish who they are going for and who you are getting at. Amendment 33 six to ensure that the scope of the offences in clause 13 and 14 applied only to the smugglers.

The amendment seeks to link the offences to financial or material gain. If there is another way of explaining the financial material gain by which the method you determine a smuggler than it is worth noting and in that respect I did take note of what the Noble Lord Harper mentioned in groups who come to the way of dealing effectively for the migrant situation. Fortunately, I went to visit the site of the jungle in Calais two weeks ago. It is fields.

There is nothing there but fields, grass, and animals grazing. And that is because French authorities have dealt with groups of people to make sure that they fit with the strategy with which they are adopting and they had no complaints about the way in which that was working at present. So, maybe times have changed, may be people need to be thinking differently, I just wanted to say that about the issue. Amendment 35 sees that the defence exclusive in clause 13 ensures protection of refugees, smuggle people and victims of trafficking in certain circumstances.

That is the question when you mention certain circumstances you have to define what those circumstances are, otherwise the courts would not be able to make the appropriate work. Amendment 38 says that the scope of amendment 14 for gain, that is the distinguishing factor and 44 that the defence exclusive clause 14 ensures protection of refugees, smuggle people, and victims of trafficking in certain circumstances. Again, I think you have to define what circumstances, because, otherwise, it becomes too general.

Amendment 57 says that the reasonable defence excuse in clause 13 ensures refugees, smuggle people and victims of trafficking, again, in certain circumstances. This wording I think needs to be reviewed. Finally, 13 gives us defence for refugees in certain circumstances closes 13, 14, 15 and 16. Obviously, there is a need for typing up in this matter in order to ensure that we can separate out people for whom this bill is intended to those that are causing the misery, those that are trafficking, and those that are smuggling and those that are spread around Europe to make sure that these schemes work.

These are the people the bill should be and is aimed at and all these amendments do is to make sure that we focus entirely our efforts on those people. Therefore, I would suggest that these amendments have the right sense of direction. They do enshrined the international regulations that we sit within and it is not just one convention, I think it is quite clear from the Noble Lord that the raft of international conventions and laws and rules that we sit behind.

We are part of that international way of dealing with matters and if we lose that we are dealing with it and we do not follow that through then I think we will never be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

follow through. I am grateful to all noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their speeches in this group, and I listened, again, very and I listened, again, very carefully to the Noble Lord and the rationale behind these amendments. The general thrust of all noble Lords amendments do seem to impose Lords amendments do seem to impose further limits on the exercise of legal powers designed to tackle people smuggler gangs and their people smuggler gangs and their supply chains. All these new supply chains.

All these new offences, we need to be both clear and bold in providing our law- and bold in providing our law- enforcement agencies and our costs with the legal tools and powers they need to be robust in tackling the gangs with the cause of and the major beneficiaries from these
17:59
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
major beneficiaries from these problems, so these benches rightly criticised the Governments for the rhetoric around smashing the gangs which in our view at least is empty but it is a clear fact that they continue to tackle the criminal gangs and it is right that they use this as an opportunity to shape our legislative framework so that we can do that as effectively as possible. Turning to the specific commitments, amendment 33 and 38 in the name of the Noble Lord would add an additional demand.

And that is in order for the person to have committed an offence, it must demonstrated as well that they financially benefited from the supply of the relevant article for use in connection with that offence. Again, I understand rationale and the intentions behind it, but I do put myself against the amendments in support of the current Governments and again a slightly rare position unlike other aspects of the bill but it seems clear to us on the benches that the text of close of 13, 14, and 16, creating these offences, is adequate, it is clear, and it is Under clause 13 a relevant person commits an offence of they supply offer to supply an article to another person, and at the time they do so person also suspects that the relevant article is to be used by any person in connection with an offence.

We believe that someone who knows or suspects that what they are doing sports people smuggling has done enough to commit an offence, by requiring as well as a condition of the offence that a person must supply an article for financial benefit would weaken the offences. In these clauses. Financial benefit is not relevant here, it's an additional unnecessary and superfluous condition. At a time when we need to take urgent steps to address this problem not only in the interests of protecting our borders but also to protect those who are at risk of death when crossing the channel creating additional barriers to tackle the gangs and their suppliers doesn't seem to us either responsible or practical.

This is a time when we need to send a clear message that if you are involved in people smuggling through supply of articles for immigration crime what you're doing is wrong and will not be tolerated, we therefore posts with respect these amendments. Dealing quite shortly with the amendments 35, 44 and 57 around the interpretation of the phrase reasonable excuse I think I can make my point very shortly. Courts should in our view interpret reasonable exclusive -- excuse in terms of the words in the face of the bill and using normal rules of interpretation, no more no less, it is not necessary to expand those rules of interpretation stop I was also very taken with the point made by Lord Faulks because we are opening a huge complication and complexity if we are going to ask judges to direct juries about how to apply the phrase reasonable excuse above and beyond normal rules of interpretation and with regard to international agreements.

Finally, amendment 203 which would apply section 31 of the immigration us 1999 to this set of offences. Again appreciate the intention behind the amendment but we are concerned about unintended consequences this will have. It risks blurring the lines between those to whom legal protection should be afforded with the actions of those who may be exploiting the system. Someone who supplies forged documents, helps others across borders, gathers information to assist illegal and treat may be part of a criminal network me cannot make assumptions that they are in fact persecuted individual seeking entry to the UK.

We have to construct a legal system that does not distinguish between a refugee acting out of necessity and facilitator hiding behind refugee status. Furthermore it appears to me that the original scope of section 31 of the immigration us act 1999 was to liberally focus unlimited to offences like illegal entry and document offences, directly associated with the refugees entry into the UK. This amendment amendment to a three expanded to cover third-party criminal conduct prior to entry, and that in our view goes beyond what the original intention of that statute was.

Which was primarily about prosecution for illegal entry and illegal presence. Offences about supplying articles for immigration crime are a very long way from that concept. The other key distinction here is that the laws to which the noble Lord refers, use the term refugee whereas the clause he cites in the bill uses the term person, and any person accused of these offences. That I think is an important distinction and one which I am concerned this amendment may blur. In conclusion fundamental concern that we have with all the amendments in this group is about the impact on the capacity of the government to deter crossings in the first place and it's our view they delete that capacity.

We need to make it more difficult for smugglers and facilitators to operate, not easier. We need to send the message that Britain is cracking down on this behaviour not making it easier to get away with. If we want to properly engage with this issue we need to work with our legal and judicial authorities to give them the power to tackle this challenge head on, not tie them with further restrictions which would make addressing this grave issue even more difficult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful again for the initiation of this debate by the tabling of the amendments. Can I tabling of the amendments. Can I begin by saying to Lord Cameron that I thank him for his comments on this
18:06
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I thank him for his comments on this and I don't think there will be very much difference between us in this and I think he has made some very strong points which I will potentially echo in the discussions I bring forward to the House in Committee now. I want to start if I may by just re-emphasising however three points which I think are important to the consideration of these amendments. Number one is that the gangs are the targets of the government's action, not the people who are seeking asylum or people seeking refugee status or even people being trafficked without either of those two issues being the reason.

The gangs are the targets. Secondly Lord Alton of Liverpool has made a lot of reference to the joint committee report on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill got a copy of which I have for ease of in understanding. I just want to reaffirm to him that it is the governments intention to respond to that report prior to report stage of this bill and that he is bringing forward now our recommendations from the report which are amendments to the bill now, but we want to examine the report and give a full response to the report before report stage so he will have the opportunity to examine the government's response prior to tabling any amendments at report stage accordingly.

I did note out of interest that there were 12 divisions in the report from members of the committee during the course of the consideration on Wednesday, 18 June. There was never unanimity even within the report on what report should say, therefore it's even more important that the government examines all of those concerns and reflect upon the 12 divisions that places policy unanimity in the report that was finally produced after that. I think it's important I say that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recall that I was keen to tell

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recall that I was keen to tell Lord German but in fact the first one through 54 paragraphs have been agreed unanimously, there were agreed unanimously, there were divisions before I mention that, but he will be very pleased to know that the Labour members of the committee voted in favour of the report to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

man and woman. To know what my comrades in arms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To know what my comrades in arms in both houses have done and it's important that the government reflects on all points of view, simply make the point that there will be a response to the will be a response to the committee's report prior to report and those nuances will be examined as well as part of the discussion. as well as part of the discussion. The third point, I just want to make the third point before take intervention, the third point the intervention, the third point the government wants to put on record, and I've said this before in earlier discussions, that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights and the badges in the bill support that aim and are compatible with UK human rights obligations.

That leads human rights obligations. That leads directly to the points that the noble Baroness box made, like Lord Harper made, and indeed Lord German. Those three important principles will stop number one gangs the target, we will respond to the port report number three we believe we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are compliant. Forbearance of the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forbearance of the Minister, while he is in pensive mood, will he confirm that there is a possibility confirm that there is a possibility That the government's current review of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights switches, Convention on Human Rights switches, was announced on 30 March may well be concluded by the time that for instance we get to report stage or Royal Assent for this bill and would potentially feed into any further potentially feed into any further amendments that the government brought forward?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought forward? Reviewing the issue of article 8 but intends to review it in a way that examines judicial discretion on article 8 and potentially looks at article 8 and potentially looks at how we can reflect on how we can improve performance on that issue. improve performance on that issue. It does not mean that we will be withdrawing from article 8 or indeed withdrawing from any aspect of the convention. I think it's important that consideration is given on those issues full stop me if I may turn issues full stop me if I may turn directly to the amendments before the committee today.

If I start with the committee today. If I start with amendment 33 and 38 would seek to add the requirement that one can only be prosecuted under these offences if an individual derives the financial or material benefit from engaging in the offence. These from engaging in the offence. These offences as I've said target criminal gangs at the early planning stages when potentially financial or material gain is often not yet evident. The very reasons the number of noble Lord have mentioned introducing the requirement and the clauses will gain would significantly constrain law enforcement ability to intervene early and disrupt organised crime groups before crossing occurs or money indeed changes hands.

Given the complexity of cash flows in these criminal cases it's impractical to exempt those without apparent financial material gain and doing so would again shift the burden of enforcement to prove gain undermining effective prosecution. Additional amendments to this clause do not take into account the wide range of complex agreements that might be considered when engaging in for example substantial benefits in kind for engaging in activity and with this amendment ever be guilty of an offence. Again, these are going to be complex issues and for the very reason that Lord deben mentioned and indeed Lord Green, there is continued pressure is going to be ramped up, even now I can update Lord German that the president of France has made reference to the fact we need to have international cooperation in his address to both houses a few minutes ago, and indeed that there will be again consideration of joint action on the criminal gangs for the action on the criminal gangs for the very reasons that Lord Deben and indeed Lord Green has mentioned because it is a national important issue that needs to be resolved and there will be increasing pressures.

I just say to Lord Alton of Liverpool who moved the amendments I don't think it would be appropriate or proportional even the life- threatening risks posed by the people smuggling that the amendments he has proposed are accepted, they would undermine the opportunity for early intervention that these offences are designed to examine or stop. Whether as evidence of organised criminal activity, where lives are in danger where the borders are undermined those individuals would rightly be liable for prosecution regardless of whether financial or material gain can be demonstrated.

There are going to be pressures, Lord Deben has mentioned clearly, it is an important issue, I see that too Lord Green, but in order to deal with these issues we need to have some potential powers of criminal action and I'm grateful again to the support from Lord Cameron from the opposition front bench. If I look at amendment to a three, 35, 44, 57, amendment 203 without the offences and clause 1314 and 16 as well as the offence of illegal entry under the Immigration Act 1971 section 31 of the Salomon Immigration Act 1999, this section currently protects refugees from being punished for certain actions that they may have to take to reach the UK.

Amendment 35, 44 and 57 would make it difficult to prosecute an individual where they to engage in this crime and seek to claim refugee status and I think again most of the issues that Lord Faulks referred to which I think are very key issues that this committee needs to consider, I want to emphasise again these offences are not targeted at refugees but at the vile people smugglers, the amendments would provide a potential defence to individuals even if the commission of the offence had nothing to do with conduct which was necessary to arrive in the UK.

As such an individual could be absolved from all sorts of behaviour including engaging in the offences before arriving in the UK creating a loophole for anybody who wish to commit those offences and I want to just reassure the committee of the House that care has been taken by officials in the Home Office and with ministerial support to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs but do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by these criminal smuggling gangs.

Each clause a nonexhaustive list of reasonable excuses including one those acting on behalf of an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services, and those intending to act in the rescue of a person in danger and indeed clause 15 contains a carveout of humanitarian items that cannot be considered under clauses 13 and 14+ carveout is under clause 16 for academics jet, journalists, rescuers and those seeking to provide those humanitarian services necessary, the safeguards are when combined with investigator E discretion and prosecution and the public interest test for charging decisions in for -- ensure the enforcement is targeted and proportionate and I My Noble Friend raised some absolutely vital points and I hope that I can reassure her which was her starting point that the gangs are the target, not the refugees.

And that is the principal behind what this bill is bringing forward and those safeguards I hope are sufficient to ensure that both the Noble Lord is supported by the noble Baroness and can withdraw those Baroness and can withdraw those amendments in due course given that again I have given assurance that we will reflect on the report as a whole prior to the report. There was one more late amendment which came very recently, amendment 51 a tabled by the Noble Lady Baroness Hamwee on hygiene products to the list of carved out items for the use in immigration in clause 15.

I just want to remind the House of the beginning point that this offence does not criminalise specific articles, but criminalises those that supply with the knowledge or suspicion that the articles are for use for the purposes of relevant immigration under sections 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. Now, I just want to put to the noble Baroness I have had a chance to reflect on this. The definition of hygiene products, for me, yes, potentially, very wide. I think I know what she means, and I think I know why that is important to potentially look at that issue, but, for example, an underarm deodorant could be potentially designed as an aerosol, as a hygiene product.

That could be used both to start fires, create a flamethrower, spray in people's eyes first I just simply put that to her as a consideration. Areas are to have a shave could be determined to be a hygiene product, but, equally, could cause deep lacerations when used as a weapon. I think I know what she means, but I would simply say to her that the definition of both back again to the definition of both back again to the Noble Lord which is always important, it is important to know what we are talking about when we talk about what we are talking about and, therefore, I think that is quite a wide resolution on that potential point she has made.

And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to my Noble Friend the Minister. Given that my Noble Friend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given that my Noble Friend the Minister knows what Lady Hamwee means, and given that he has Parliamentary Counsel at his Parliamentary Counsel at his disposal, might he consider a Government amendment that adds Government amendment that adds female sanitary hygiene products to a list that currently includes food or drink or medical products?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or drink or medical products? I understand the point that the Minister is making. The report used term hygiene kits and I did not term hygiene kits and I did not understand what those might be. They sound a little bit like complimentary items that you might complimentary items that you might get in plastic wrapping in a hotel. But I wonder whether the Minister would agree that we might have a discussion about this. It would discussion about this.

It would require regulations to change, the require regulations to change, the list of articles in clause 13, 15. list of articles in clause 13, 15. It would be far better if we could talk about this is a sensible, not political point, and get it on to the face of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I just want to remind the House that this offence does not House that this offence does not come and lies specific articles but criminalises those that supply them step I do not think of a realistic scenario that some have mentioned in scenario that some have mentioned in amendment 51 A1 used for their intended purposes could be used in intended purposes could be used in connection to an offence under sections 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act and, therefore half Immigration Act and, therefore half all into the scope of this offence.

But I understand the intent of the But I understand the intent of the noble Ladies amendment. I think there are legal safeguards and it is something that we can reflect on and something that we can reflect on and have a discussion around because the points I have made my hope that she recognises would be potentially valid. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment today and, again, that is an issue that we can examine is an issue that we can examine outside of the committee today.

But, outside of the committee today. But, with those comments, I hope that noble Lords can withdraw their amendments today and then once we amendments today and then once we have responded to the report and the Noble Lord has the ability to return Noble Lord has the ability to return to any of these items, should he so wish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wish. I am grateful to the Noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has responded to this numb list of
18:22
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
six amendments and I apologised earlier that it inevitably was going to take time to get through them to take time to get through them all, but we are agreed about one thing which is the bill itself is thing which is the bill itself is there to target those that are there to target those that are profiting from organised crime. There is no disagreement in the House about this, it is not a binary choice between either the victims or profiteers. People are exploited and need to be protected, but the present there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of these offences and I think we are of these offences and I think we are agreed about how we do it that matters and it is the role of matters and it is the role of committees like the Joint Committee on Human Rights to examine these things takes scrutiny and detail, even on issues like the question of hygiene, 10 months specifically as an amendment in the committee by one an amendment in the committee by one of the members who said this should of the members who said this should at least be examined by the Government and, indeed, it is on page 67 of the report, amendment page 67 of the report, amendment eight, page 15 line 38 where it inserts the words hygiene kits extending the list of included items in so doing.

I am grateful to the Noble Lord giving the response that he has to the noble Baroness but this is something that could be looked at outside of these proceedings and I will take away the points that he has made and made by all noble Lords that participated in an excellent debate today. A couple of brief remarks though, if I may, the Noble Lord talked a lot about the international grievance we have entered into and our duty is to comply with those and they are living documents and things to challenge and to the amendment but I agree with the Noble Lord Jackson in pressing the Government as I have done previously to let us know as soon as possible before we get to the report stage what over thinking is about article 8 of the ECHR.

I referred to this in these amendments but also referred to the protocol against smuggling and article 26 of the convention on trafficking in human beings published in 2005. These are important questions that we must always benchmark our actions here against. It is not that we are caught in a trap of international a. These are things that we, as a nation, have entered into. Obligations that we must live up to. As far as the interpretation of the courts is concerned, my Noble Friend makes in important point that just as I think there needs to be further training for lower tier tribunals as we have discussed previously, I do not think it is beyond the ability of our judges to be able to give direction and many of these international conventions that all of a sudden with anyway and even though that I think article 8 may well be something that is a result of the actions of the Danish Government and, indeed, others who would not normally be regarded as hostile to international action as one of the signatories of the email that the Noble Lord referred to earlier on that had no destination it certainly caused quite a lot of controversy inside the Council of Europe and the European Court, but it has provoked a debate which I think was overdue about whether that interpretation is correct or not and I think that we can all welcome that.

Baroness Chakrabarti said that we should go after people who are monitor rising this issue. She was right, and she was right, also, that we have had a fine tradition in this country and said it was the world's apology for the Holocaust to introduce the European. There were a lot of other factors involved, but all of this is to know that British lawyers and politicians and, again, the Conservative party at that time in its leadership were deeply committed to the creation of European scaffold to try and govern some of these questions, to try and look at some of the challenges that are different but that is not a reason for walking away from our obligations, but it is surely a reason of ensuring that we stand together with others and we want to make sense of those things, so we protect those who are at risk, and we ensure that we go after those who are acting in a criminal manner.

I will take the points away that the Noble Lord the Minister has made and take them back and I am grateful to him that he says that he will respond before report stage. That will give us a chance to decide whether or not the amendments of a similar nature or some that work in the eyes of Government but do not continue to discuss this outside of committee, whether it is possible to bring that back we can decide in due course.

For now though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Wye is ideologically that and 33 be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 34, already debated, Bernard Hemingway, not move. Amendment 35, Lord Alton of Liverpool, not moved. Amendment 36 and 37, Baroness Henig way, not moved because of the question is the close 13 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 38, Lord Alton, not moved.

Eventually 39, already debated, not moved. Amendment 40, not moved to amendment 41, not moved. Amendment 42, Baroness Henig way, not moved, amendment 43, not moved. Amendment 44, not moved. Amendment 45, not moved. Amendment 46.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to address
18:27
None Portrait Amendment: 46 Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-

amendment 46 and also speak to amendment 55 which is also in my name. And we are, again, back to this issue of ensuring that those who are refugees, victims of Modern Slavery Act not unfairly prosecuted due to cohesion or exploitation. And I very grateful to the Noble Lord the Minister saying the focus of this bill is the smugglers. They are the smugglers. And the problem is there is no stipulation in the bill that to be guilty of crime the person must be a trafficker or a smuggler, so the problem is that we want to ensure the refugees, victims of Modern Slavery Act, could not unfairly prosecuted for behaviour committed in the course of the actions.

So, what we are seeking to do in amendment 46 is to set out amendments 14 and 16 that those involved in organised immigration crime are the ones that are to be prosecuted. Rather than those seeking asylum by strengthening the statutory offence which we have already heard from the Minister is one about finance. And I am always open to suggestions as to how else you might be able to distinguish between asylum seeker and a smuggler. In which case, one could extend the definition.

The offences that this bill creates are very substantial indeed, and rightly so. We support them. But in clause 14 handling articles for use in immigration crime, there is a forty-year maximum imprisonment status. The same for clause 16. Five years imprisonment for clause 18. Six years and five years for further clauses in the bill. These are substantial matters of imprisonment. There are substantial cases, and it is very important that nothing should happen that allows people to slip through the net.

So, given the severity of the sectors before that I have just mentioned it is critical that we make a very careful approach to the drafting of the new offences to safeguard against any unintended consequences such as the criminalisation of those seeking asylum. The bill, of course, as we now know, is widely drafted for prosecution to try to deliberately catch those acting at a distance as well as close to the acts of smuggling. And the road construction of these offences as currently drafted, to unintentionally capture vulnerable individual such as asylum seekers and victims of trafficking.

We have already heard the case of the young man who was forced to drive one of these very unsafe boats across the channel and was prosecuted as a result of that. So, the government's intention in introducing these new offences is to target the supply chains of people smuggling networks and to prevent risks to live set see posed by those connected to the facilitation of the The bill needs to ensure that these vulnerable groups are not inadvertently criminalised and subject to a period of incarceration.

What these amendments try to do is target individuals involved in people smuggling rather than those seeking protection. These seek to safeguard vulnerable individuals from criminalisation by amending the statutory defences to include those who did not gain financially from their actions that would bring the bill closer to the government aim already stated of tackling the gangs, going for the tackling the gangs, going for the smugglers. There are two offences which is where this might happen. The handling offence in clause 14 covers when someone receives a relevant item.

That relative item could be a boat or dinghy and it is not clear what receive would mean and how it could impact someone trying to reach the UK. It does not mean they held it in the water or whatever. It needs to be clear. The offence covers collecting, possessing or viewing information that can be used to organised or to prepare for getting to the UK irregularly. It is broad, could cover anything and is important to the government ambition because it will impact possibly people who get into a small boat and that is where they need the distinction to start.

It could cover lots of people who produced informational research whose purpose is not to try to assist people getting to the UK. What the amendment seeks to do is shift the emphasis to those which profit financially from immigration and crime and we consider that these clarifying amendments will be closer to the government stated aim of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

targeting smuggling networks. Amendment proposed, clause 14,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 14, line 8, insert see their action was line 8, insert see their action was as part of their own journey and
18:33
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
that they did not gain financial boost.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a grateful to the opportunity to speak to several opportunity to speak to several amendments tabled by my noble friend who regrets he is unable to be here today and asked if I could move the amendment on his behalf. I agreed amendment on his behalf. I agreed with what Lord German said in the earlier amendment. Diane grateful to earlier amendment. Diane grateful to the Law Society for the briefing they provided but I should emphasise they provided but I should emphasise the amendment is not confined to Scotland.

It is a UK wide amendment. I take in summary the argument by quoting gangs are the targets, not quoting gangs are the targets, not the refugees. We give effect to saying that the gangs of the target and not the refugees. What amendment and not the refugees. What amendment 50 is intended to do is to make this legislation in the spirit of the Refugee Convention ensuring that Refugee Convention ensuring that vulnerable people are not barred from refugee protection on the basis of criminal acts they committed in order to claim asylum in the UK.

In other words, if somebody crosses the other words, if somebody crosses the The legitimate basis at all. They are vile people. The fact is that some of the people that cross the channel as a result of their efforts, we hope that we stop these traffickers, but some of them are in fact refugees. If the only offence is to cross the channel by boat then we are making them vulnerable victims and that is not a sensible thing to do.

Elsewhere in the bill the government approach is in fact to concede the point and I do not see why it should apply in this section of the bill. What we are seeking to do if we don't amend the bill is to create a Kafkaesque bill is to create a Kafkaesque situation in which we would remove protections on the basis of steps taken by refugees in order to seek these protections in the first place. That seems to be a clear point. I would have thought the government would be willing to tidy up the bill to achieve this particular end.

I would like to make it clear the Refugee Convention has a provision about particularly serious crimes, but they are designed to exclude individuals whose record of criminality forfeits their claim to asylum, but it should not apply to those asylum seekers who are. Because there are no safe and legal routes to enter the country by these means which we labelled in previous legislation as illegal. If we had safe and legal routes and I will not get into a secondary debate on this, then the whole thing works in a better way.

Furthermore, as regards to amendment Furthermore, as regards to amendment 56, that is limited and seeks to remove an inconsistency within clause 16 and that is to say this creates an offence of collecting information for use in the mediation of crime. But it is an offence for anyone who does it for a journey made only by them. The amendment is to say that if they are travelling in a family group, they would also have that defence.

A simple point indeed, and it goes fully in the spirit of what was said earlier. Gangs are the targets, not refugees. Gangs are the targets, not refugees.
18:38
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We have amendment 51 and 51, b which would add mobile phones and charges to the list of relevant articles. Lord Alton is just leaving he will be coming back. There are innocent examples of the use of mobile phones in the JCHR report. Mobile phones are very common. We are looking for proportionality. Some years ago I heard opponents of asylum seekers, refugees, who were outraged. They even have mobile phones, as if that was some sort of great luxury.

They would be perfectly capable of getting possibly not first-class seats, but seats on planes because they are very civilised, well-equipped, and moneyed. I haven't heard that for some time. They are not a luxury these days. They enable asylum seekers to keep in touch with their family. I think that's hugely important. Not for a sinister reason, but they are a lifeline for mental health. Apart from more mental health. Apart from more -- 51B goes to what was mentioned in the last group.

This includes relevant articles and my amendment would provide for consultation with organisations which have been without charge to assist asylum seekers and that point was made by one of those organisations at the briefings to noble Lords and after all if there is to be a change, if people know what happens on the ground, I'm not suggesting the government doesn't, but people have that particular take on it and it is a perfectly reasonable problem to be consulted on. I've signed amendment 56 to which Lord Dubs has spoken.

People do travelling groups, not everybody, but some do and it would be natural that a husband perhaps who carried occupants, his wife and children, or a mother would carry documents for her children and I think it would be right to make that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. Once again, I am grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions
18:41
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lords for their contributions to this group of amendments around safeguards to the offences. As I have already said in previous groups, it is the position of His Majesty's opposition benches that the new criminal offences in this bill must be as watertight as possible. We know people smuggling criminal gangs are incredibly innovative in their efforts to continue running their illegal operations, concocting ever more ingenious methods to circumvent the law and we must do all that we can to frustrate that and to do so we must ensure there are no loopholes that could be used to evade legal repercussions.

Turning to amendment 46 in the name of Lord German seems to us with respect to be necessary. The person in question has a defence if they are able to show they carryout a rescue Awaab working on behalf of an organisation that assists asylum seekers and does not charge for its services. If someone has broken a law if they will be under this clause and not able to avail themselves of the specific defences, they have committed an offence for which Labour should be That That is That is a That is a dangerous That is a dangerous precedent That is a dangerous precedent to establish that someone acting to benefit themselves can get away with those actions that are demonstrably illegal and if someone knowingly engages in criminal activity and is unable to have recourse to defence in the set out in the face of the bill we need to be clear they have been committed a crime and should be liable as a result of this and it blows wide open the current rigour and focus of the offences as currently drafted and is the opposite of the strong message we need to send to those who are need to send to those who are illegally violating our borders.

Amendment 50 and 62 for the purpose of the Convention relating to the status of refugees means any offence committed under the relevant sections were not regarded as a particularly serious and as I listened to Lord Dubs, explaining the rationale for those and I completely understand the concerns that lies behind the drafting of these amendments, the language in that convention does talk about constituting a danger to the community of 1/3 country. That is very strong and I completely accept that, and I think it is important to consider this in context because illegal migrants and to the UK without going through any checks whatsoever.

It can be impossible to find out who saw migrants are, where they come from, what their history is and fundamentally what sort of people they are. Safe and legal routes are safe and because they answer these questions. Let's not forget the incident that happened in when five Iranian nationals were arrested for planning what the Home Secretary described as a major terror attack and they arrived in the United Kingdom by irregular means including small boats and a lorry before claiming asylum.

One of those was taken out of his taxpayer funded accommodation when he was arrested. Is it not clear that these men did constitute a danger to the community of our country and we appreciate the risks we run when faced with this system and the problem we had no idea of who these people are all the potential risk that they pose. Police and security services were successful in foiling that attack but we Karen -- cannot guarantee its success. We need to reflect this and we oppose this amendment for that reason.

Amendment 51 in our view undermines the principle of clause 15 which sets out which items are excluded from the definition of relevant article and if you read the items on that list they include food, drink, medical products, bedding. They excluded the definition of relevant article on the basis that those articles support life and are essential to supporting life and we struggle to understand why a mobile phone should be included on such a When phones are frequently used to facilitate the crime of entering the UK illegally.

At the moment, it appears to us that the noble Lady, Lady Hamwee, is seeking to apply an exclusion to an article which is absolute not necessary for supporting life, it is indeed one of the central tools in allowing these crimes to take place. Indeed, to our purpose of these powers, it is to be sure law officers have sufficient power to tackle the gangs, to remove mobile phones, from these powers of surgeon Caesar, were completely undermined and would hinder our ability to protect our borders.

Amendment 55 is, in our view, not necessary because the bill already makes clear that it is an offence for the person to show that their action or position was for the purpose of the journey to be made only by them. And if the purpose of that amendment is seeking to target people smugglers, then it's unclear why this additional amendment would do it any more effectively than that, which is already set out on the face of the bill. Amendment 56 risks creating a loophole, in which we can see the amendment, the principal, the intention behind that amendment abused, in order to allow those who should be prosecuted to raise a defence under this section.

There are issues around what a close family member. And the definition of that, but more importantly, there is an administrative burden which that would create, which would be required in order to facilitate this in practice. It is hard enough to identify each individual person arriving in the UK illegally, let alone establishing who is related to who as to what degree. In the meantime, those who claim under this amendment would be compensated at the taxpayers expense, that the government made clear, irresponsible use of taxpayer money.

Finally, in conclusion, if we are to deter crossings and illegal entry into this country, then surely, we do not want to construct a legal system in which acting to facilitate crossings, even to a close family member, is somehow excusable. As we have been clear on these benches, we need to approach this issue robustly and carve out defences for those who engage in and facilitate this. It is not forget, criminal activity were directly undermined this capacity. directly undermined this capacity.
18:49
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled and grateful for the approach of His Majesty's loyal opposition, in relation to these. And again, I think there would be much areas of agreement between the opposition and the government of these issues. And I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord Cameron has responded to the debate today. Again, I just want to particularly reassure my noble friend, Lord Dubs, again, the care has been taken to ensure these offences have the flexibility to target smuggling gangs, and do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by them.

And I have said that in other groups. I may say it again in further groups, I am saying it again in this group. That is the target for government action. Amendment 46 seeks to amend clause 14 to ensure individuals are not criminalised for handling items relating to their own journey, providing they acted solely for personal use and received no financial gain. Again, I say to the noble Lord German, clause 14 already provides a nonexhaustive list of reasonable excuses.

And cases can be assessed individually, and prosecutors will consider the public interest, as well as specific guidance relating to it. Including whether there is clear evidence of a credible common-law defence of duress, or duress of circumstances, and whether the immigration offence was committed as a necessary part of a refugee's journey to the United Kingdom. Now, that will be done before shipping charges. With the clear intent, again, to go back to my noble friend, Lord Dubs, of targeting smugglers, not those that are exploited by them.

There is a list of items carved out, outside of this list, to facilitate a crime are shared, taken or easily given to others to hold, risking further loopholes, as items used in organising an immigration crime can be easily transferred or misrepresented, as personal use. That goes to the very heart again to the point the noble Lord Cameron has mentioned. Which is enforcement would be significantly more difficult if the amendments today proposed were accepted. These offences were designed to allow enforcement to work earlier and faster at the proprietary stage of an offence, potentially saving lives at sea, and in the back of lorries, and therefore, I find it difficult to accept the amendment, which I believe would hamper this objective.

If I look at both amendments 46 and 55, which aim to add a financial gain element any reasonable defence, then again, I must respectfully oppose the amendments. These offences target criminal gangs at an early planning stage, when financial gain is not yet necessarily evident. Introducing the requirement in the clauses for financial gain would, I believe, again significantly constrain or enforcement's ability to intervene early and disrupt organised gangs before a crossing occurs and before money changes hands. Again, there is complicity in cash flows in his criminal case, and it's impossible and impractical to present those without clear financial gain.

Doing so would shift undue burden on to law enforcement to come again, undermine effective prosecution. This would not be proportionate, given the life- threatening risks we have seen in the channel, where it is present. It would also undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to facilitate. Where there is evidence of involvement in organised criminal activity, such as facilitating illegal crossings through the commission of these offences, prosecution should be possible, regardless of whether financial gain can be shown.

If I may, I will turn to amendment 51, as tabled by the noble Baroness Hamwee, which again, I share common ground with the noble Lord Cameron on these matters. Amendment 51 proposes adding phones and chargers to the list of exempt items in clause 15. Now, clause 13 and 14 do not specifically criminalise specific items. They target the supply or handling of items, with knowledge or suspicion that they will be used in immigration crime. The key issue remains intent.

I think everybody in the committee today will recognise phones are commonly used by smuggling gangs to coordinate crossings, and enforcement agencies must retain the ability to act, when such items are knowingly supplied for criminal purposes. A blanket exemption will create a significant loophole and weaken our ability to disrupt smuggling operations. Mobile phones are used to organise criminal gangs. And therefore, it's not practical or feasible to exempt from the proposals in the bill today. Can I just say to my noble friend, Lord Dubs, I am grateful he was able to move the amendments on behalf of the noble Lord Browne, because I did initially believe they would not be moved, so I am grateful for him to move those amendments.

Amendments 50 and 62 aim to disclose the -- Exclude the amendments to the serious crime intervention, 1951. I note which I have put myself on that note which I have put myself on that as well. The offences would only be considered, this is an important point for my noble friend, is particularly serious crimes if the sentence reaches the 12 month threshold. A court would have to consider all the circumstances of the offence in detail, so if it implied, as a sentence of moment 12 -- More than 12 months, it is right it is treated as particularly serious and the individual can still show they are not a danger to the community.

This year alone, and this goes to the heart of all amendments, there have been 14 deaths at sea. I cannot agree that taking part in and providing means and methods for vulnerable people to risk their lives at sea in increasingly overloaded and poor quality vessels, and the lack of transit lorries, could not be considered a serious. Under my noble friend's amendments under the name of the noble Lord Browne, 50 and 62, aim to exclude those offences as being critically serious under the Refugee Convention 1951.

I would like to reassure my noble friend, there is a minimum sentencing requirement for the offence to be categorised as a particularly serious. And it is right that this offence be treated as a particularly Serious Crime if it is more than 12 months, as mentioned, providing section 62 of the Salomon Immigration Act 2002, the court will be able to consider whether the offence -- Asylum and Immigration Act. To consider whether the offence is appropriate. If they did not considered a danger to the community, for the purposes of article 33.2, thereby retaining protection against the potential, being brought for them.

If I look at amendment 56 which proposes the statutory defence for those doing the journey for a close family member, again, I appreciate my noble friend in moving the proposal. Proving close family relationships is very complex. I will content to my noble friend, it is best handled on a case-by-case basis. Clause 16 already includes a nonexhaustive list of reasonable excuses, and each case is assessed individually. Prosecutors, this again is key, we have discussed this in earlier groups, prosecutors will consider the public interest before pursuing charges.

With the clear intent of targeting smugglers, not those exploited by them. That will be a common theme put through all the responses to all the groups to date. The target for the UK government, in cooperation now with charities from other nations, is to target the smugglers, not those exploited by them. As such, again, I hope that my noble friend will not move the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Browne. Finally, if I may, I want to turn my attention to amendment 51, B, which would require the Secretary of State to consult with organisations assisting asylum seekers before making additions to the list, of carved out articles under this legislation.

I know this is a well-meaning and well- intentioned proposal, but I do not think it is necessary or appropriate in the context of this clause. The articles for use in immigration crime offences concerning prevention of immigration crime and provide the opportunity to act quickly before lives are lost at sea, and in the back of refrigerated lorries. Clause 15 of the proposed bill provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State, to designate certain items, as carved out for this offence. At the option for the Secretary of State to add to this list is to never remove them without going through...

Sorry, the option is for the Secretary of State to add to the list but not remove them without going through a full parliamentary process. If we had formal consultation with external organisations, before decisions can be made, to add an item to the carveout, that could include additional bureaucracy which would delay urgent action, and as members will know, immigration crime is dynamic, it is moving, we have seen it this weekend. How that dynamic movement can take place. The methods used by those who seek to exploit vulnerable individuals, are evolving rapidly.

The government must retain the ability and fix ability -- Flexibility to respond decisively. There will be circumstances and I will ensure the House that were time and circumstance is permitted, we will always want to engage with charitable organisations on this, where appropriate. However, where lives are at stake and where time is of the essence, I want to ensure the objective of saving lives is paramount. And for that reason, I hope the noble Lady, again, will not move her amendment today.

I hope I have answered the points before the committee today. And I look forward to the response from noble members. But I hope they will withdraw the amendments, for this time, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflect on what has been said. Can I thank the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister. And again, I understand the ambition which he is setting out, which is of course, going for the smugglers and not for the
19:00
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the smugglers and not for the refugees. The problem is, of course, that the bill, as we have been discussing it, doesn't actually give us that definition, quite clearly, upfront. In other words, what the noble Lord, the Minister, has been saying, and I absolutely agree with him, is the intention which he provides to be clearly on the face of the bill, somewhere or other in this bill. I must say to Lord Cameron, by the way, he read out the first part of my amendment, then skipped over the second part, which of course was connected.

I think the issue before us, in all three of these groups, has been to emphasise the methodology, by which we can distinguish between the smuggler and refugee. And if we haven't got it perfectly yet, between us, we have to consider how we might achieve that end. The noble Lord, the minister, may want to reflect on that, in how he gets his words into the bill, because in fact, I think what you have been saying, as the Minister here, it's actually what most members in this chamber will be looking for.

Especially those of us who have spoken in these three groups. In saying that, there was only one thing you didn't respond to, and we could do this not necessarily now but in a note, which is the handling offence in clause 14 covers when someone receives the covers when someone receives the It is not clear what receive would mean and how that would impact on someone or the crime it would prevent. It is about what the word remains -- means because smugglers used to make them carry the boats and dinghies into the water.

They do not do that now. They have taxi boats which is a different way of operating. They have those people who hold it out. I'm happy to receive a note on the matter. Given there is a principle of getting these words into the bill I am at this stage prepared to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 47.
19:03
None Portrait AMDT: 47 Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 47. As I rise I draw your attention to the fact that I set up and chair to the fact that I set up and chair the global commission on modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. I stand on amendment 47 but I would like to address amendment 49. Listening to the debate so far, I have to say I think there is agreement across the House that we want to smash the gangs, deal with the criminals who are making money out of other people's hopes and misery, and the Minister made that clear and others speaking from across the House supported that intention.

I also noted the remarks made by Lord German in moving amendment 46 in relation to the issue of modern slavery and it is on that issue I have specifically put down amendment 47. My concern is in the attempt to smash the gangs the government in this bill may inadvertently catch up within the requirements of the bill those acting not in order to make money, not simply for themselves, but acting because they have been forced to do so by traffickers or slave drivers.

They are acting under the duress of modern slavery. That is why it adds to clause 14 so that a why it adds to clause 14 so that a reasonable excuse for a defence under this section is they were acting under the duress of slavery. It is easy in today's world to think when we are dealing with border and immigration crime it is just small boats. It is not elements of the bill specifically related to people coming across the water from France, Belgium or Holland, but in fact of course immigration crime can be committed in a number of different ways.

People can be caught in a number of different ways and it may well be that somebody who is being brought under duress of slavery who is being trafficked into sexual exploitation for example may in effect be committing an immigration crime and I believe they should have the ability to use the fact it was under the duress of slavery as a reasonable excuse for a defence. Section 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, talk about someone knowingly having a document that they know is in breach of immigration crime, it would be interesting if he uses that for not specifying.

The Minister is shaking his head, but I think if we are all agreed that people who have been enslaved should not be caught up by this bill and be charged with these offences, I would urge the Minister accepts that this must be specified on the face of the bill. In response to Lord German he indicated more or less that he doesn't intend to cover those people under duress of slavery and I would say it would be preferable to make it clear on the face of the bill.

Amendment 49 is in a slightly different order because it refers to the holding of items picked up as a result of action under clause 14 and it is just to make sure where this article is a relevant article is held by relevant article is held by authorities that they ensure they maintain it, protected, so that if the individual from him it has been taken wishes to use that relevant article as part of their case to the national referral mechanism, their case to be considered subject to modern slavery, that that item is protected.

It is normal practice as I discussed the other day with Lord Davies of Gower from his previous police background that police will maintain evidence and will protect the evidence, but we should be clear the articles should be capable of being protected and should be protected by the authority so that the person who might be under duress of slavery can rely on that item in the case they provide. This is about the protection of those being enslaved.

50 million people around the world are in slavery of various forms and we don't want to aid those who wish to bring people across the border into slavery and I urge the government to specify under duress of slavery under the face of the bill.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page