Lords Chamber

Thursday 10th July 2025

(began 8 hours, 31 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Decision not to proceed with changes to Personal Independence Payments, and plans to increase taxes as a consequence
-

Fourth oral question. Order Paper.
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
government's resilience action plan. There is much to be welcomed in this plan. In an increasingly unstable period domestically and abroad, it is vital we invest in defence and security as well as national resilience. Background to the plan is national experience of the COVID pandemic. The UK was not prepared for the COVID pandemic, the pandemic preparations we made were for influenza and we do not have structures in place to respond to a coronavirus. No formal structures existed for the ONS to contribute to civil emergency preparedness beyond ad hoc commissions.

The COVID inquiry highlighted the difficulties that arose from different datasets being used in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Government departments do not share consistent data freely. Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirmed the government are looking at these issues to standardise data across the UK? We also learn where the weaknesses were in our civil contingencies regime. One of the key The disparate responsibilities across government. We wasted no time learning the lessons from COVID so they can apply to pandemic preparedness as well as other areas.

We established the Covid Inquiry and founded the UK Health Security Agency and the government is right to build on this work. In addition to the weaknesses which were exposed during the pandemic, it did People stepped up up and down the country to do their bit, volunteering at vaccine rollout centres, supporting one of the fastest vaccine rollouts in the world, enabling us to come out of lockdown soon as we kickstarted pandemic recovery on our schools, businesses and hospitals. The government is right to include the role of British people in resilience.

We learnt what a force the British people are. The resilience is even stronger if we can harness the will of our fellow countrymen. He asked about proper communication in the other place, this will be vital. Can the Minister confirm what practical steps the government will be taking in this regard? We welcome their focus on flood defence. We have seen serious weather effects in recent years that threatened homes, livelihoods and food security. Must have the right measures in place to support communities affected by flooding and protect them from future leading events.

Can the Minister confirm what consideration is being given to the risk of flooding in our planning system to protect the homes of the future? Are flood response often relies on our rural communities stepping up to help their neighbours. This often means our farmers. Can the Minister explain what steps the Minister is taking to rebuild trust with British farmers after their trust in government was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shattered by the family farm tax? There are a number of issues missing from the resilience plan. missing from the resilience plan. One of the major challenges to domestic stability is economic domestic stability is economic instability. The government's fiscal policies left us with the third- highest borrowing costs of any advanced economy after New Zealand and Iceland, falling employment and higher costs of doing business. Meanwhile, the government is empowering unions, making it easier empowering unions, making it easier for them to take destructive strike action through the Employment Rights Bill.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was unable to say whether Lancaster was unable to say whether the government's plans for a general strike as part of the resilience strike as part of the resilience action plan. Will the preparations action plan. Will the preparations for a general strike plan -- form part of the action plan? The part of the action plan? The government has been clear in the resilience action plan that they will continue with their leader government department system for government department system for preparedness and the Cabinet Office will retain an essential and important role in resilience planning.

There are inherent problems with this approach. We talked about the proliferation of responsibilities leading to an uneven response and nobody taking charge in times of crisis. This is compounded by the problems of sharing consistent data across government. I think there is a gap between the government's approach and the recommendations in module one. It said UK Government should abolish the whole department approach for civil emergency preparedness and resilience. The government's plan implies the government will continue with this model.

So, will the Minister confirm that this plan does not abolish the lead government department model for whole system emergencies? Has the government recommended Baroness Hallett's recommendation? Can the Minister explain the gap? Can she confirm that somebody will be responsible and accountable to ensure the lead government departments plans are up-to-date and reflect the latest threats? What opportunity will there be for Parliament to speak nice the work of the Cabinet office and government departments work on preparedness? Can I asked the noble Baroness the Minister which types of pandemic exercise Pegasys will prepare for? We note pandemic preparedness before COVID was focused on the wrong kind of pandemic.

How will ministers ensure exercise Pegasys covers the scenarios it should? Will the list of the types of pandemics we have prepared for be made available to Parliament? And what steps is the government taking to horizon scan for bio security threats that may be developed by hostile foreign state actors? I appreciate there are a lot of questions there and I look of questions there and I look forward to the response from the Minister. Minister.
11:59
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We welcome the publication of the government's resilience action plan. We recognise we live in a period marked by high instability. From the marked by high instability. From the war in Ukraine, the Middle East, to climate change and cyber-attacks, the world is changing at an ever greater speed. These issues are nonparty political. We acknowledge nonparty political. We acknowledge But we call the government to go further in several critical areas to make the UK truly resilient. A national awareness campaign is essential to involve and empower communities in helping to build national resilience.

The current approach relies primarily on gov.uk prepare website, while useful, may not reach all segments of society. We call for a broader public information campaign, drawing on lessons from countries like Sweden and Japan, where the issues are embedded in the education system throughout the whole of society. We also welcome the government's proposals to test a national alert system on Sunday, 7 September, notifying 87 million people by text message. Text messages have their limitations. We do call on the government to look at a broader approach in this area.

I know everyone in the House will join me in sending condolences to those in Texas and New Mexico for the terrible loss of life they suffered. In that instance, text messages were sent but it was the middle of the night and people did not hear them. Can I asked the government to consider installing sirens in areas where there are specific climate risks such as floods and wildfires. The government acknowledged the importance of public resilience. In many countries this is a normal part of life.

We welcome the commitment to expand the prepare website and specific guidance for disproportionately affected disproportionately affected Go further and address the climate change we are seeing wildfires and drought and I: you to use the weather forecasting system to let us know about that wildfires. We welcome the commitment to flood defences and we need to go further to make sure that we are climate resilient. We have not built a new reservoir in a long time and last week DEFRA alone estimated that we will be 5 billion L or 1/4 short by 2050, so these are urgent actions.

Turning our critical national we have had recent highlighted cyber attacks on many of our commercial businesses, but what if this was cyber attackers turning off the taps on our national water supply? Increased national threats require robust measures. We have discussed throughout this week and there are issues about identifying PCI, and interrelationships and communications. The Government must commit to developing a cyber resilience index and we welcome the SSBN I acknowledge database to map these vulnerabilities. However, the currency and I cyber resilience is not keeping pace with this rapidly evolving threat.

Yes, we need to accelerate and plug these gaps to make sure that we are adequately prepared. Turning to countering rent somewhere, we welcome legislation and the band that, this would be helpful in making sure that we are not the target. Finally, in preparing for the next pandemic which obviously remains the one threat and again is accelerated by the impact of Climate Change Act. Welcome the fact that Government is preparing another exercise, and we would like to see full lessons learned from the previous exercises to make sure that there learned from this one.

We seek assurances that the exercise will seek a full range of pandemic scenarios and we welcome the investment into the new network of new -- national bio security sectors for integrated security fund. And plugging these gaps in the bio security are very welcome and we must continue to support our universities and make sure that we are preparing for the next pandemic. To conclude, the resilient action plan is a very positive step, we need to be more proactive, more transparent and fully inclusive in our approach to make sure that it is fully embedded in our society.

fully embedded in our society.
12:04
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank both the noble Baroness and the Lord Russell for their comments. Other broad support that the Government are doing. Before I progressed, I also wanted paid tribute to mine upfront Lord Harris of Haringey for his engagement of the government's review of resilience as a critical friend and my personal mentor not that I am blaming you for anything I get run today, good but we will give that a go, as well as Baroness Falkner, my Noble Friends Lord Friends throughout this process.

The resilience action plan highlights the fact that we are living through a period of profound change and our national resilience has been tested in ways that it has not before. In the last decade we have had to manage the domestic impacts of the COVID pandemic at the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the grant role disaster, heatwaves, increasingly serious flooding, and the impact of cyber gangs targeting UK businesses also it is more important than ever that we have a clear plan to increase the resilience of the UK as of the resilience action plan is this Government strategic approach to achieving this goal.

There are three objectives of the action plan to continuously evaluate the UK resilience using data mapping to identify vulnerabilities and target them effectively, enabling a societywide action by netting resilience in duty daily life in practical ways such as those touched on by the noble Earl, and strengthening public sector resilience by ensuring frontline workers and public services are well coordinated, empowered across all apples, from Government Ministers to first responders. The Government cannot stop every risk from materialising, it is the government's first responsibility to keep the public safe.

Resilience action plan takes an all hazards approach which works to seek to improve the general resilience of the nation similar to the approach adopted in the Strategic Defence Review. With regards to how the action plan would bring together the range of policies that contribute to how we realise these objectives, 4.2 billion funding has been marked for new flood defences to keep communities safer across the UK, investing £350 million to better secure the telecommunication network through technology and infrastructure.

We have a largely dedicated UK resilience Academy that will train up to 4,000 expert every year across the whole of society and we are coordinating the largest ever national pandemic exercise later this year that will test the U.K.'s readiness with future pandemics. We learn from previous tragedies, including Granville and COVID that whilst emergencies have an impact on everyone, it all too often hits the most honourable in our society the most, therefore we also have a risk vulnerability tool that maps particular challenges, different crises may create for vulnerable people to enhance Government response both before and during a crisis.

We are embracing the data. My Lords, to answer some of the specifics that have been raised by the relevant frontbenchers, we are going even further in terms of to the action plan and our update on biological security strategy set out concrete measures, including, as the noble Lords have mentioned, the second nationwide test of the UK national emergency system which, I believe, is the right and Alex birthday, so it is his birthday present, on Sunday, 7 September at 3pm which is a notification going out 87 million mobile phones at once.

We will be working with all stakeholders in the run up to the national alert, including domestic charities to ensure that the public has as much warning as possible. It also gives us an opportunity to directly engage with the general public in terms of communicating the importance of resilience and the tools that they will be using to do more broader actions in the area of resilience. And we have spent too many hours writing political campaign material, knowing that it typically goes in the bin from the front door to the kitchen.

We have to make sure that we have a variety of tools available in terms of how we communicate, so that while paper is always my backup, especially where I live, we need to make sure that we also have the right materials available online when using radio and television to make sure people have the right comes available, so this is a wider opportunity and we will also be able to alert during schools to schools 87 million people will receive this and it is an opportunity to make sure that this is working.

Alongside this we will push ahead with activity to promote that Governments prepare website to help individuals and households understand how they can be ready for a range of emergencies in all of these actions are about making sure that the foundations are fixed. Noble Lords have touched on a variety of issues, so I am just going to respond directly, and I very aware that the noble Baroness made a series of questions, and I may have to reflect on this because I did not quite catch them all.

With regards to how we are actively seeking to standardise data, the Noble Lady raises a really important point. The national security centre is now a coordination point and ensures best practice for data use. It is an extraordinary tool and is utilising data. We are about to sign an MOU for Governments to ensure that data is used between the national situation centre and the devolved Governments in this area and I think that will help our standardised data. The Noble Lady did something that I should have started with which was to praise the role of people in delivery of our resilience.

We also extraordinary actions during COVID as people came together to look after communities in my own area it meant hundreds of thousands of meals were delivered to children who qualify for free school, extraordinary thing that they did coming together. I have already talked about proper communication and practical steps with regards to flooding, I do have a piece of paper somewhere about a piece of paper somewhere about flooding. There you go, like magic. Thank you. The Government inherited flood defences at their worst date on record since June 2009/10 but investing in record levels of club prevention and protection.

Over the next 10 years we are committed to £7.9 billion of capital investment for flood defences from the environment task force is a new approach preparing for flooding by bringing together representations from national, regional, and local devolved Governments in the emergency services, businesses and environmental interest groups that help in terms of a planning system. That Noble Lady is definitely focused on agriculture today, and I give her points for it. But, obviously, we have a multifaceted relationship with the agricultural community and we continue to work with them in this area as we have always done.

She also touches on the issue of economic security and inability is very aware that this Government striving mission is to increase economic growth in the wake that the last Government simply failed to do and it will do so that we have enough money to fulfil the commitments that we are making. I should at this point declare that I am a former trade union official and in my experience I do not believe that unions need empowering, they are fine by themselves but what we are doing is making sure that the general public and workers have the appropriate rights in the workforce and I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords next week when we have the Employment Rights Bill for your Lordships house.

There are many other points, but I am aware of the time, but I do want to touch on cyber because it is so incredibly important and, obviously, we will be bringing forward the cyber resilience bill in due course when time allows. And also we need to make sure that we are ahead of the threats that are coming, and everything about the resilience action plan is to strengthen our foundations because as noble Lords will be aware, the sheer range of threats that we currently face, we do not know what is going to happen next, I wish we did, but it is about making sure that we are prepared when that comes to us.

I will look at all the questions that have been raised and if I have missed any, I will write to them. will write to them.
12:13
12:14
12:16
12:16
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lady makes an important point. The only issue I would challenge is I think cyber could affect everybody. We just saw what happened with Marks & Spencer's. There is an impact, potentially, for everybody. In terms of itemising the threats, the noble Lady makes an important point that what we are trying to do is make sure the foundations are solid. And there are gaps. In terms of where we sit and how we seek to move forward, it is about making sure that will understand what responsibilities they can do.

Even if 10 percent of people put in extra support at home, it means 10 percent of people, at the point of an emergency, we will not have to look after in the immediate 24-hour is and can focus efforts on the more vulnerable. About how we can make sure resources are more effective, people understand how and what they should have at home. After COVID when we had many conversations about toilet rolls and flower, making sure people have what they need at home for a week's worth of supplies is a conversation I think we should all be having anyway.

Although I think I, like most people, want to put a lot of those memories in a box and not have to think about them again. She is absolutely right. There has to be a real conversation with the general public which I truly believe the Prime Minister has started with the country when we discussed the scale of threat, about how our world is changing quickly around us and what responsibilities and impact that may have on our day-to-day lives. Some of that is about money, others about actions and personal responsibility.
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord makes an important point about the role of special constables, also the role of all volunteers in our community and the work they do to keep us safe on a regular basis. Noble Lords will have heard me many times talk about our security and police forces as they run towards danger to protect the rest of us. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. With regards to the specific point he raises, I'm going to beg his indulgence and talk to his department about his suggestion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I will talk to him. Having been in the education

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having been in the education department in the pandemic, the measures we took engendered a lot of anxiety and additional fear into anxiety and additional fear into young population. Can she outline how we will embed this with young how we will embed this with young people without causing into -- people without causing into -- causing them to fear. Having a go back, how do we make that a norm for back, how do we make that a norm for young people? That that is something you have, whether at university or you have, whether at university or home? Is the government going to be monitoring the effect on young monitoring the effect on young people off the message that is going to go out in September? I presume that the mobile phone coverage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

includes young people now? I thank her for her question, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her question, we are undertaking a National Curriculum review, some of what we discussed today and the education discussed today and the education point raised will be touched on as part of the National Curriculum part of the National Curriculum review. We are clear that teaching review. We are clear that teaching about emergencies here and -- in an age-appropriate way, helps pupils think about risk without causing harm. We think schools can talk to their pupils appropriately.

The Department for Education provides guidance to support schools in doing this. this.
12:29
12:29
12:30
None Portrait Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill – committee stage (day 3) - part one
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

In In clause In clause 28, In clause 28, amendment In clause 28, amendment 95. Matt Matt my Matt my Lord, Matt my Lord, I Matt my Lord, I beg Matt my Lord, I beg to Matt my Lord, I beg to move
12:30
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Matt my Lord, I beg to move amendment 95 into clause 28 of the bill, specifically 28 two. Which is about the use of information supplied by HMRC. I acknowledge that many, possibly most people think that if information is given to a Government official as one part of Government, Government as a whole has it. That is not the case. And we do need to take protecting data. 28.1 allows the use for any organisations functions and the organisations functions and the amendment would limit to the functions which the information is supplied.

It being for the purpose of any other functions of the purpose of the persons in subsection 3 and I have explained that extraordinarily badly. Can I refer people to come to thinking you can write brief notes instead of a complete speech which I try to avoid for committee stage. I refer noble Lords to the authority of the bill. Basically, I want to limit the use of information that is provided under the bill, and to ask the Minister how this would work what sanctions, what sanctions there are for information that is misused.

Amendment 190, whose absence I think the Noble Lord Watson, raises, again, the issue of a firewall to protect vulnerable people and the Noble Lord I am afraid is going to hear a repetition of points that I made during the Employment Rights Bill because the point is relevant there as well as here. The objective is to protect workers who are in particular work of protection because of the abuse and exploitation that they are experiencing.

And the amendment would restrict the use of information disclosed for enforcement purposes, enforcement against abuse or expectation regarding a subject of abuse who is seeking support and also information regarding that exploitation, and a regarding that exploitation, and a return to witnesses. I became aware during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act of the conditions to which overseas domestic workers were subject, and slavery was the right term, and a change in the law was made, it was minor and frankly quite inadequate.

Our Lord did not and does not protect migrant workers were not just that but agriculture care and health as it should and they are particularly vulnerable to abuse, not just because of consequences of their existence coming to the attention of immigration authorities but because of therefore your of the consequences, people that do not know their way around the system, who are in fear of any authority who are in fear of any authority figure are very open to unscrupulous employers that can't make threats and the threats may have no foundation at all that the person may be detained, deported, that the persons children will be taken away.

So they cannot take the risk of reporting abuse and exploitation. And I am told that this fear is not unfounded. There is evidence that the data is often shared between the labour market enforcement agencies, the police, and immigration enforcement. The current situation has a widespread effect. Mistrust by migrant communities preventing peace and Labour inspectors doing their job properly and that drives down commissions for all workers. It is not impossible to deal with, if this has been implemented through the Netherlands and in Spain I understand that Surrey police have implemented this and the Greater London Authority is undertaking a London Authority is undertaking a pilot.

During the Committee stage of the Employment Rights Bill noble Baroness O'Grady mentioned that the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and immigration found that allegations raised from inspections were not investigated by the Home Office, and, as she said, the rights of all workers are only ever as strong as the most vulnerable. One comment made during that debate was that nobody should fear, and another comment with which, of course, I agree which came from the Conservative benches was that one of the bravest human rights uses is Modern Slavery Act human trafficking.

And that vulnerable individuals risk slipping through the gaps. The Minister on that bill argued that blocking information sharing could have unintended consequences and make it harder for vulnerable individuals concerned to vulnerable individuals concerned to get the help that they need and deserve. And the right balance was maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. I would argue that the system actually deters those from seeking protection. And clear to you working in the sector is that the current position is the very considerable detriment.

The immigration white paper says that we recognise the challenges that migrant victims of domestic abuse can face, domestic is quite a wide term in this context. And will strengthen the protections in place to support them to take action against their abusers against their immigration status. This is an opportunity to make an adjustment which would make a very considerable difference to people who do not get the help that they deserve from those that always get it and those that are in a position to move that difference.

The Conservative frontbench happened at 188, I am really intrigued as to why we want to amend the Data Protection Act, given paragraph 4 of schedule two which, from these benches, we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

often opposed. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 28,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 28, page 21, line 14, leave out from then to the end of line 15 and
12:39
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
insert only for those purposes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be brief because I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, what she has to say. Baroness, what she has to say. Particularly about the position of Particularly about the position of domestic migrant workers. I know this is something we will come back to a later stages of the bill, but as the noble Baroness has raised it as the noble Baroness has raised it now we put on record how much I agree with her and her Noble Friend agree with her and her Noble Friend Lord German and I recently met has done extraordinary work in this field and we were reviewing how field and we were reviewing how things have changed and also need to be changed in the years past since be changed in the years past since 2015.

I have got with my publication called 12 years of Modern Slavery called 12 years of Modern Slavery Act, smoke screen used to detect data accountability for migrant domestic workers. I know that the domestic workers. I know that the Noble Lord the Minister Lord Hanson Noble Lord the Minister Lord Hanson of Flint agrees that the findings certainly in 2015 are because there certainly in 2015 are because there is a photograph and both of them is a photograph and both of them looking considerably younger alongside our friend retired now alongside our friend retired now from this place from the Noble Lord Hilton.

And was celebrating the passage of the 2015 legislation, recognising the still needs to be done, and I were not quoted at length at this report but we are sharing my coffee with him. So that he can study the photograph and see the effects of too much engagement feels like this. In the report, it says Government data tells us from 2005 to 2022 the number of visas issued by migrant domestic workers is around 20,000 per year, so this does affect a significant number of people doing significant work and they have urged the Government therefore to take immediate steps to amend the immigration rules for reinstatement rights provided for the pre-2012 these are regime in amongst the writers reviewed the data annually subject to ongoing employment.

That is a reasonable demand, I think, and I hope that at some stage during proceedings on this bill the Noble Lord will see if there is a way to address that issue. I support what noble Baroness Lady Hemingway has said. Lady Hemingway has said.
12:42
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to just speak briefly on a couple of the amendments in this group. I was listening very carefully to what the Noble Lady said in the information sharing provisions in clause 27 and 28 which the amendment refers to. I think it would be helpful, certainly for my benefit, I may be the only one of the Minister will not here a response, to just be clear about scope of these two clauses. My reading of clause 27 and 28 is that the HMRC data that is allowed to be shared under those provisions is purely that they came within their customs functions.

Not through their other activities, so I was not entirely clear how that would help or not in the very important issues that the Noble Lady raised about protection of workers and, rightly, the need to crackdown on those that abuse pupils immigration status and employment when they have no right to work in the country, so I very much support strengthening the law in this area and sharing information to support that. I was not immediately clear on the customs, so I think that the customs data, specifically, looks to help strengthen the case about combating organised communal groups.

And their transporting of their funds and their supplies that they used to do this trafficking. That seems to me the purpose of the clause that would be helpful and I think if the Minister flesh that out. The other amendment in this group I want to strongly support is amendment 188. And 190 because of my Noble Friends, I think that we should just in terms of whether we support them or not go back to the purposes of the human rights legislation, particularly the GDPR data.

Do not think the intention of that legislation, it is absolutely right to protect the information for people that use it legitimately in the country but I do not think we should use that legislation to protect those that are here illegally or who are criminals trafficking human beings and abusing our rules. Think it much more helpful if that legislation was not used to protect them, so I very much support the amendment down in my Noble Friends name and will be set out in more detail, but I just wanted to add my support to those and the question that I had arising from the noble Lady's contribution.
12:45
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
If I could begin by speaking to amendment 188 and I would appreciate the support of the Noble Lady Baroness Fox Buckley on this proposal. And I can grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Harper's support just now. This amendment inserts a new clause to exclude illegal migrants and foreign criminals from GDPR provisions in relation to personal data processing by authorities carrying out immigration enforcement functions. We need to be clear about the principles at stake here, security, accuracy, and the here, security, accuracy, and the rule of law.

If you are serious about defending the integrity of our borders and our domestic security, then we must ensure that those on the frontline are law-enforcement agencies do have the full, legal tools they need to do their jobs effectively, and that is a thread that has run through many of our remarks for these benches during this Committee stage of the bill. For the important reason that we expect these organisations to protect us and to uphold the rule of law, we must do all we can to help This is through targeted and proportionate access to information so decisions about an individual status can be made on facts, not In everyone's interest.

Far from being a threat to their rights, the amendment strengthens our ability to protect the most vulnerable. It is only by accessing the necessary data whether digital -- whether digital records, communications or location information. That we can determine if someone is for instance a victim of modern slavery traffic, as we heard from Lady May of Maidenhead. If we shackle agencies with red tape, we risk missing that and in so doing deny people the protections the system was designed to provide. UK GDPR plays a vital role in safeguarding the data and privacy of law-abiding individuals, but we must also be honest, those who break the law by entering this country illegally, or who are convicted foreign criminals, cannot expect the full suite of privacy rights to remain intact when they come under investigation.

The point made eloquently by Lord Harp. Rights are not absolute and privacy must give way where it conflicts with a greater public interest, the prevention of crime, protection of This amendment reflects that principle. It ensures exemptions apply only in the context where specific immigration and border security functions and empowers authorities, as well as protecting borders. It enhances, not diminishes, the fairness and credibility of our immigration system and I urge the House to system and I urge the House to support it.

Amendment 95 is, as the statement sets out, approving amendment, which asks which information should be used by the parties set out in the preceding clause. I look forward to the Lord the Minister sitting setting out a vision on how the processes should vision on how the processes should work. Our reading is these are necessary, if we are to tackle this problem alongside partners, which we must have on board as part of a must have on board as part of a The third-party set out The third-party set out in The third-party set out in clause The third-party set out in clause 37 include immigration officers, customs officials, director of border revenue, border security commander, and a government of a country or territory outside of the UK, amongst others.

It seems to me that we plainly need to have an arrangement in which information can be shared between these parties. That is vital to tackling the issue of illegal immigration. It is important we have a system that pulls together agencies and organisations not only in this country, but also in other relevant third countries. I hope the government will use this opportunity today to set out how the system will work and how information will be shared quickly and effectively. Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord the Minister does not require much commentary from us other than to say that we recognise it as an important part of the enforcement process, it now mandates consultation with devolved administrations.

That is an important point. The Front Bench in my party has a certain Celtic flavour to it, as does the government bench, it is not a flippant point, it is a reminder that we have a UK wide immigration system, it is often easy to focus simply on events in the south-east, we do have a UK wide immigration system and involving devolved governments is intrinsic to that system. Amendment 190 in the name of Baroness Hamwee, I believe that this amendment may have serious and counter-productive consequences.

It would place a blanket restriction on the use of vital information disclosed for the purposes of investigating or reporting labour abuse from being used for immigration or nationality purposes under the 2007 act. In doing so, it would create a legal firewall but a firewall that would undermine the integrity of our enforcement agencies. It also raises a deeper question, which is how are we supposed to protect people from such abuse if we are prevented from identifying them in the first place? There are practical implications to this.

If an individual presents as a victim or witness of labour abuse but is in this country unlawfully, surely the state has an interest in understanding that their immigration status, for their own protection and the broader system. It is vital for the safety and security of everyone involved that we understand who is here, on what basis and whether they are at risk of further harm or criminal exploitation. This amendment would prevent that link from being made. It asks our agencies to act with one hand tied behind their back, able to hear a report of labour abuse but not allowed to use that information to cross-reference immigration records, not even for the purpose of assessing vulnerability risk or appropriate support groups.

In doing so, it may make it paradoxically harder, not easier, to protect those most at risk. There must be safeguards, we must build trust. A safeguards, we must build trust. A trust cannot come at the cost of operational paralysis or an ability to detect abuse in the first place. I would urge noble Lords to think carefully about supporting this amendment, which may feel principles, but in practice may undermine our ability to enforce the law, support victims and secure our borders.

borders.
12:52
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare my interest in the organisation that provides support for me and members across the House. I want to start with the amendment about protecting trafficked people and those who are coerced into coming into this country in many cases. The noble Lord has referred to the session a few weeks ago here in the Palace of Westminster where we heard the testimonies from people and how they managed to get out of the circumstances which they found themselves in modern slavery.

It is important that the migrant workers are able to report the abuse they had without fear that the other part of the system would come here and say, you are here illegally, we will not deal with that first. It is a matter of which part of the system you put first. It seems to me that what this is trying to do is to make sure that we can protect those who are being coerced and, rather than being subjected to their immigration status rather than the condition they received.

It would be good if these things could be work together, but the reality is that they do not work together. Migrant workers have heightened vulnerability to exploitation and are less likely to report, in many of the cases we heard here, in this palace, that people were running away, literally running away with nothing and they could not run away until they have someone whom they could run to. They fear the authorities would prioritise their insecure immigration status over the harm they received.

That is the balance this amendment is trying to correct. This concern is well founded. Evidence indicates that individual's personal data are frequently shared between Labour Market Enforcement agencies, the police and immigration enforcement. This occurs despite the absence of any legal obligation for Labour Market Enforcement agencies or Local Authorities to verify workers immigration status or report those with insecure status to the home office. Unscrupulous employers are able to capitalise on this fear with impunity. It pushes down wages and conditions across the board.

That is the purpose of the particular amendment. I would commend it to the Minister. In explanation at the end perhaps he could say how we can first of all deal with the issues of people trying to escape from coerced labour, and abusive labour, and exploitative labour, and how that can be dealt with in an effective manner, when the other part of the system is working against it? I want to refer to the amendment I press the noble Lord on on Tuesday.

I'm grateful for him pointing out what it is. The only point I wanted to make on that amendment is the requirement now is for the noble Lord to consult the devolved governments rather than simply take note of them, which is I thought would perhaps be the indication we were getting from his earlier letter. I am pleased that the amendment requires he should do so. amendment requires he should do so. On the matter of GDPR, I do understand why the Conservatives have come to this position because what they simply say is, everybody coming to this country by an illegal means is illegal.

They do not want the case to be heard, they just want to get rid of them again. That is thankfully what we are going to deal with today, in further amendments we are going to hear we are going to remove that university -- universality of the approach. In the way the government has laid before us. In that sense, it is important the GDPR applies to everyone in the UK, including those in the criminal justice system, and ongoing investigations.

It seems that is a universality that has been a principle of our law and we should stick to it and not create illegality where it does not necessarily exist.
12:58
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to noble Lords for commencing this afternoon's consideration and the amendments proposed by Baroness Hamwee. Before addressing the points made by noble Lords on their own amendments, I went to bed to move the amendment standing in my name relating to clause 33. That is amendment 96, I will come back to that in a moment. If I may, I want to begin by addressing the comments made by Lord Alton, which have been reflected elsewhere. He may know that during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act we, as official opposition, and I as the shadow immigration Minister, moved amendments in the Minister, moved amendments in the act at the time.

I do not need to see an out 10-year-old photograph of ourselves to reflect upon that that if he wishes to pass it to me I may have to do that. We did do that at the time. In the immigration white paper, we made specific reference to the issue of domestic workers. I will reflect on those points as we go through. We want to make sure we look at the visa rules to make sure that is operating in a fair way. It is not directly related to the amendments before us today but I wanted to place that on the record again for the noble Lord.

The amendment in my name does do is noble Lord German says it does, which is amend the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with the registration data that may be used by the police and onwards shared with the police in accordance with provisions of clauses 30 and 31 of the bill. The clause creates a power to make police recommendations to specify purposes related to policing and the clause creates a duty to consult the following persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate and lists Scottish ministers, department of justice in Northern Ireland and police representatives.

Throughout the developing of the clauses we the developing of the clauses we have worked with the Department of Transport, DVLA, police, National Crime Agency and HMRC, along with devolved governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a result of the engagement it was clear that there was, however remote in practice, the opportunity that regulations could be made by the secretary of state without first consulting the devolved governments, due to the discretion with her with the current draft. In order to change that, we have tabled the amendment, which I do write to the noble Lord about at the time, which we did have a bit of confusion on Tuesday about, but which I hope is resolved.

It was always the government intention to consult administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the government make sure we do enable clarity by ensuring that the Secretary of State must consult with Northern Ireland and Scottish ministers before making the regulations. consult and keep on touch because you want to do that on a range of matters because we want to do that not just with devolved ministrations, but with police representatives. There are several amendments being tabled, comments by noble Lords elsewhere.

I want to First of all, this goes to the point from Lord Harper, clauses 7-31 in this bill is the power HMRC to share information, in connection with its customers and functions. And the DVLA, to share information it holds, in relation with the registration of trailers, including entire datasets where appropriate, across government, and with law enforcement bodies. Those clauses are there for the purpose. The purpose is to enable the Home Office and other partners to benefit from the use of modern big data tools.

And analytics. To meet the key government objective for law enforcement, national security, customs, and immigration issues. The legislation permits the supply of data for legitimate purposes, such as immigration, customs and more enforcement. To tackle what this enforcement. To tackle what this bill is about. At this bill, again, I say to noble Lords, and we discussed this on Tuesday, it is about tackling organised immigration crime and other offences, whilst, I hope, giving the public the reassurance that such use will be subject, and again for the noble Baroness, Baroness Hamwee, two proportionate safeguards.

To the noble Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord German, in support of that amendment 95 and 190, which probes use of data Agraba information from being used for immigration purposes, if that information was provided by ministers of labour abuse and in connection with abuse, those provisions, I understand, but the HMRC from customers and the DVLA for trailer registration datasets, as covered by clauses 27-31, reference in the amendment, are, by their very nature, collected for specific purposes.

As the noble Lord Harper mentioned, these do not include information provided by victims or witnesses of labour abuse, or in connection to such abuse. Whilst lawful data and intelligence are already a key part of operational practice, through the clauses of the bill, what we are trying to do with seek to expand the use of data, and enhance using modern data analytics and big data tools, so the government ability to identify risks and threats is therefore stubborn doing so will prove efficient and effective in response to that very unlawful activity, regarding the movement of people and the movement of across-the-board, that this bill seeks to address.

The HMRC data, and again, I hope this is a reassurance to all noble Lords who have mentioned it, is solely used and held in connection with HMRC's customs function and it relates to processes by which goods and cash across the UK border, for example, information collected directly by HMRC, where people and companies are importing or exporting goods. The DVLA trailer registration data is broadly limited to some basic details about UK registration trailers and the keepers of those trailers, so both datasets, sharing both datasets with the Home Office, enables better identification and detection of broader criminality.

I hope that is the objective that the House and committee today will share. We do not want to lose that data, we do not want it to be analysed in isolation. Datasharing is key to that objective today. But I wish to, hopefully, a firm for the noble members in the committee that serious labour abuse and exploitation issues this government takes extremely seriously. That is why my noble friend, Lord Katz, has spent many a pleasant hour dealing with the employment rights bill currently, before this House.

Including significant provisions which strengthen employment rights, protect vulnerable workers, and which is committed to tackling exploitation wherever it occurs. And also, feeds into the points the noble Lord Alton has mentioned. Because the employment bill is about employment rights. And overseas workers will still have those basic employment rights, and so should they. Nothing in this bill will contravene the employment rights Bill, or any other existing legal safeguards. And I know we have safeguards. And I know we have discussed this on Tuesday, with the noble Baroness May of Maidenhead, but the mechanisms are already there as well to support those with insecure immigration status, who may be victims of abuse.

The national referral mechanism under the Modern Slavery Act is in place to ensure individuals can be properly identified and supported. That is a structured compassionate route for potential victims of Modern Slavery Act, to receive help -- Of modern slavery, to receive help without fear of intimidation and consequences. If I may, I hope that reassures the noble Lady and the noble gentlemen, we will see in due course. But I hope it does. I want to turn now, if I may, to amendment 188 and, again, in a spirit of friendship and cooperation, I hope I can reassure the noble Lords Davies and Kamron on their amendments, of using personal data for legitimate purposes, such as immigration control, is already committed under data protection law.

This supplying data protection rules, in a blanket fashion for certain groups, is therefore, I think, unnecessary. But it could also disadvantage individuals who are the most vulnerable people in society, such as the victims of trafficking. I take the issues in this grouping extremely seriously. I hope we have, with the operation of the national referral mechanism, as well as the improvements in the employment rights bill before the House recently, and still, I think, awaiting its third reading next week, but certainly before the House recently, we have sort of struck a balance between protecting the most vulnerable, and ensuring the good agency cooperation is maintained.

And I go back to that basic principle on the bill, which is the gangs. We are trying to secure action against criminal gangs, that exploit vulnerable people in the first place, and the provisions of clauses 27-31, in this bill, are designed to do just that, in a datasharing way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, can I probe a little bit on the point he made in response to my noble friend's amendment on the datasharing and the GDPR. He said, and I understand why he said it, he felt the amendment that my it, he felt the amendment that my noble friend put down is unnecessary. Is he able, either unnecessary. Is he able, either today or in writing, if not today, today or in writing, if not today, or on a future day, the issue in -- To reassure the House where there aren't cases, where we are dealing with foreign criminals or those who with foreign criminals or those who have entered the country illegally, where either his department or where either his department or relevant officials are, or stop dealing with them because of that.

dealing with them because of that. Is he basically saying there is not a problem? There are cases of dealing with commonality, or these kinds where there is an information kinds where there is an information sharing problem. If he is happy to reassure us that there really isn't reassure us that there really isn't a problem, existing GDPR framework works effectively, then clearly that is very reassuring for that is he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is very reassuring for that is he able to say that? What I will do for the noble Lord, as I will reflect on and look at in detail the Hansard of the contributions being made today. But my assessment as I can give him that assurance for if there is any assurance for if there is any difference to that, in any of the details mentioned, I will double check with officials, to make sure we are clear on that. But he should know, and I think he does know, that one of the government's objectives is to turbocharge the removal of is to turbocharge the removal of Are foreign national criminals, who have no right to stay in this United Kingdom, post their sentence, and indeed to try and return people during their sentence, and to ensure those were offences that barred their entry to the United Kingdom are acted upon accordingly.

And that is a really important principle, and without rehearsing with him now the arguments around that, the past year has shown we have had an increase in the number of foreign nationals removed, and there is an objective to try and do that. But if he will allow me, just so I can give him the reassurance, I will assure that between myself and officials, we examined the Hansard, and that we, if the reassurances given are not sufficient for him, I will do so, and he still has the opportunity at report, as he does, the noble Lord Cameron, to revisit this issue.

In light of that, I would beg the noble Lady withdraws her amendments, the noble Lord withdraws his amendments, and I beg for money to move the amendments standing in my name in -- I beg formally to move the amendments standing in my name in this group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It might help the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to know the paragraph in the Data Protection Act, the wide phrase, the exemption for the phrase, the exemption for the purposes of immigration, is one of that these benches have opposed, given our relative positions. That given our relative positions. That might be a pretty good reassurance
13:11
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
might be a pretty good reassurance to him. I am quite full to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for extending the Lord, Lord Alton, for extending the debate little. The pre-2012 Visa regime was more realistic, if I can put it that, to the position of domestic workers. Restricting the leave. I don't know whether that is actually the right term here, but the period to remain in this country six months after the incidents frankly was insufficient to help frankly was insufficient to help frankly was insufficient to help For, for instance, being a nanny.

If you can find someone who is able to do the job for longer. And I am, of course, disappointed about, but not surprised Energy Minister's response to amendment 190. -- But not surprised at the Minister's response to amendment 190. In regard to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron's noble Lord, Lord Cameron's amendment. Listening to him, I was struck that we should allow agency to people who are, or recognise the agency of people who are affected or abused.

The Employment Rights Bill has a clause which raises to me, very interesting situation, that the state can take enforcement action on behalf of, and without the consent of, an affected individual. I think that raises some very interesting and frankly troubling issues. However, I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 95. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? The this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is clause 28 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is closes 29-32 stand part of the bill closes 29-32 stand part of the bill for As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. In clause 33, amendment 96, Lord Hanson, moved formally? The question is amendment 96 be agreed to. As is amendment 96 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The content". The contents have it. The question is that TOSIN OLUFOLABI:33 as amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have a stubborn clause 34, amendment 97, Baroness Hamwee.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Hamwee. I beg to move amendment 97. And amendment 98. I'm grateful to the amendment 98. I'm grateful to the Right Reverand Prelate for signing Right Reverand Prelate for signing these amendments, it would add to the applicability of clause 34, by increasing the flexibility of arrangements for taking biometric information, and what we have in the bill is indeed very welcome, and given I am off... I think the Minister needs to send those photos round.

So we can all share the fun. But I was going to say that given my criticism of quite a lot of this Bill, I do want to acknowledge that clause 34 is welcome. But there is always but. The clause is limited to situations where the government is facilitating the departure of the term, in the heading to the clause, Evacuees et cetera. People who are entitled under the UK's own laws, to a reunion, to which these amendments would extend the clause, are often unable to exercise that right, because they are not able to get to where they can provide biometric information which was required for a visa for staff and the government, by definition, recognises that, because that is what the clause is about and I haven't heard any news emanating from Downing Street this morning.

I think there could be issues that we will be discussing fairly soon. I will look forward to the Minister explaining how they might work. Because, gosh, what a lot of issues are raised as to the lot of issues are raised as to the Some people manage to get to a centre. Others don't. I have heard descriptions which are really quite hair-raising of the risks undertaken, quite often by a woman by herself without the protection of mill accompaniment -- mail mill accompaniment -- mail accompaniment.

-- male. Only have the vetoes are granted for children. People use the services of smugglers to cross borders to get to a Visa centre. They often have to go more than once. They go once to provide the biometrics and then to collect a Visa. I recall meeting a mother and daughter who had to make a second trip because there was an error at the Visa centre and they had to correct the information and go again and again.

The physical and mental toll that this takes is very considerable. The Red Cross have provided a couple of examples. They found that almost 60% of families displaced during the application process are affected and have long called for a change in the process so that biometrics can be collected when a positive decision on a visa has been made. It should be made easier for those who are encountering difficult situations. These amendments would not solve everything but they would be something, so that, for instance, a husband who has been did as a refugee from Afghanistan found that the only way he could help his wife achieve a Visa was for him to go to Iran, so he could take his wife to visa centre.

So that a two-year-old child living with his grandmother in Sudan, rather displaced from Sudan to Chad, with the neatest Visa centre being in Cameroon, and his grandmother could not get their -- there. Happily, he was able to be helped by the UNHCR but it took over 11 months to do it. It's very sad to think that that is a positive position. The amendments would give some practical meaning to the family reunion right. A bid to move.

reunion right. A bid to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Insert " The person is applying for a refugee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family reunion." I rise to support these two amendments in the name of Baroness amendments in the name of Baroness Hamwee. For the very reasons she gave. Clause 34 is to me very gave. Clause 34 is to me very welcome. I'm very glad the government have put this in. But, it government have put this in. But, it is very narrow. There is a considerable overlap between family
13:20
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
considerable overlap between family reunion cases and evacuees. This is about evacuees. I would like to bring the two together, as Baroness Hamwee says. The top five countries from which family reunion cases come our serial, Sudan, Eritrea and our serial, Sudan, Eritrea and Afghanistan. -- Syria. We are in the same situation of facilitating evacuation. It doesn't work very well at the moment, for reasons that Baroness Hamwee has spelt out. The double journeys point is a really worrying point.

To collect the via, worrying point. To collect the via, you have to go to visa centre. In the five countries I have listed, the top five countries, there are no centres for obvious reasons. You have to cross the frontier. And when we are talking about a family reunion, 50% of those involved are children. More than 50% of those involved are children. So, we are asking them to cross the frontier, go somewhere that could be a very long way away to get their visa.

Now, we are not. It's worse than that. We are asking them to go twice. Were asking them to go once to give their biometric details and secondly we are asking them to go to collect the visa. They can't get it the first time. Could they not give their biometric details, have them taken when they pick up the visa? When the family reunion case has been established, when they are going to be let in. Then, they would need to make only one journey.

It seems to me that there is a simple improvement of the process, which would save a lot of heartache and probably a lot of lives. And in cases where it has been decided by the system that family reunion is appropriate and should be facilitated. So, I support the two amendments ably moved by Baroness Hamwee, but I hope the Government will go a little bit further and think hard about changing the procedure for the collection of the visa, so that the biometric details could be given at the time the Visa is picked up and thus the double journeys could be avoided.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly in support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly in support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly in support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly in support. I am also supportive of Ramp, and this is in the register. The
13:24
13:25
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
not seen the results. I was in meetings all morning. It has honestly been widely trailed that President Macron will talk about making it... Improving the reception by this country of applicants for family reunion. It would be perhaps a little ironic if... Well, it would be a nice coincidence of efforts if from this side we are proposing simple improvement in process, and we also have an ally in President Macron who is saying to please simplify and streamline your family reunion efforts.

That would be a reunion efforts. That would be a nice addition. Families often become separated. Not only does the family together have to make possible multiple journeys, but dispersed members of a family, including children have to make multiple trips from different locations. So you are multiplying the risks, the possibility of violence and distress. I think my noble friend referred to how one in five families had to resort to using smugglers to had to resort to using smugglers to reach the visa centre.

One of the purposes of this bill is to put the smugglers and people traffickers out of business. Here is a government policy which is helping, which we regret, but it is the reality, to give people smugglers were business. This could be avoided by the simple shortcut of either making a biometrics collectable other than at Visa centres and not requiring at least two journeys. And the thought of a lone woman or in a family with children having to expose themselves to all the threats to safety that we can imagine and we are told about is really unconscionable.

It would not be a great effort by the Home Office to keep people safer -- it would not be a great deal of effort by the Home Office to Help keep people Home Office to Help keep people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safer and satisfy President Macron. President Macron will be supportive of what the noble Lady just had. She will be glad to know, as I was glad to know, that British Red Cross recommended extending the Red Cross recommended extending the close to include family reunion to ensure that children can provide biometrics outside of a visa centre. The noble Lord was making this point The noble Lord was making this point during his very good speech. His sensible as always remarks.

Extending the provision is long Extending the provision is long overdue. The Red Cross interviewed a overdue. The Red Cross interviewed a large number of families. Just under large number of families. Just under half the people found the journey is very difficult. One in five Were very difficult. One in five Were using smugglers to reach the Visa centre. And 60% of families centre. And 60% of families displaced before -- were displaced before or during the application process. Baroness Lister gave the example from Iran.

I will give an example from Iran. I will give an example from sedan. During 2023, I travelled to Darfur. 300,000 people were killed there during that
13:31
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
genocide. 2 million people were genocide. 2 million people were displaced. Here we are in 2035 with the war in Sudan, which is often so overlooked, because of events in the overlooked, because of events in the Middle East and events in Ukraine so high on Argento's. It has been appalling to see the horrific number appalling to see the horrific number of deaths and displacement again in of deaths and displacement again in sedan. -- So high on our agenda's. sedan.

-- So high on our agenda's. Suzanne is probably on the top of the list of those who end up in a small boat trying to cross the small boat trying to cross the English Channel. It comes back to English Channel. It comes back to what I said last week. I say this to regularly. We have to tackle the root causes. Until we do, this root causes. Until we do, this problem is not going to go away. The Red Cross gave this example from Sudan of a two-year-old Sudanese child.

This child was displaced in child. This child was displaced in Chad. He was living with his grandmother and seven other children grandmother and seven other children in care. He was required to provide in care. He was required to provide a facial photograph before his application could be processed. application could be processed. There is no Visa application in Chad. The nearest one was in Cameron. The grand mother and child were unable to travel to Cameroon due to the dangers of travelling across borders and their inability They agreed, as they were able to check the identity of the child with passport, and reach security transport, with the passport back- and-forth to Cameroon, to fix the visa and the passport, it took 11 months for the child to be united with his parents, because of all the challenges outlined, a Red Cross argues that the amendments to this clause in the family reunion would have reduced waiting time and make sure families can get access to the application process without requiring interventions and legal support for their services.

I hope people take the opportunity perhaps between now and support as they if we can do that. I was pleased with what the Lord said earlier on in the previous group of amendments about biometrics. He specifically said we have no intention of supplying any of the protections in the GDPR guidelines, the ones issued post Brexit. I would simply draw the noble Lord's intention to do things in that regard. The open rights group, collecting biometric data from children could violate child protection standards.

They say this, according to the guidance of the Information Commissioner's Office, on Sensitive Personal Data under the UK GDPR Ban is categorise a special category data, and requires explicit consent, it stresses that when dealing with minor's data, additional safeguards must be implemented to protect their rights. Therefore collecting biometric data on children under 16 without proper consent could breach child protection standards. As it fails to meet the stringent consent requirements, and the enhanced safeguards necessary for processing such sensitive information.

I hope, my Lords, the noble Lords will say something about the protections we will give to children and minors as part of that process. Clauses 34 and 35 tainted biometrics, 35 specifically, which I support, backs up observations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, pages 33-35, paragraphs 82-89 of the JCHR report I would like to say to the noble Lord, the Minister, reported back to the committee yesterday in its proceedings the commitment he gave to us on Tuesday, that there will be a response to the committee's report between now and report stage of they were delighted to hear that.

The noble Lord may be less delighted to approve 100 page report or the Crime and Policing Bill, coming his way soon. He will be able to read it during recess. As the committee notes, under the , extracting biometric information from anyone, including a child, as I said, an under 16-year-old, irresponsible adults should be present for top if the government is facilitating the exit to a country, that person would need to leave the UK. That might include facial scans and finger prints, but they can be kept for five years.

I note that national security, as well as immigration, nationality and/or enforcement, as justification for this and it may well be that in some cases, that is legitimate. And I have a completely open mind about that. The government must bear in mind with convention duties to collect and retain such information in a proportionate and foreseeable manner. I would like to hear what safeguards are being put in place to ensure it is not going to be misused, and whether the government is truly confident that with the use of automatic processing, the safeguards are actually adequate.

Our obligations are clear. Blanket and indiscriminate attention isn't acceptable, which we have committed ourselves, and we do have obligations under article 49 of the obligations under article 49 of the UK GDPR. Clause 35-37 gives powers 's transfer personal data to an organisation without accord, what a Secretary of State needing to consider whether such transfers are " Necessary for important reasons of public interest." So the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended a normal safeguards should apply and not be dis-applied or relaxed.

Let me conclude by reminding the committee of the conclusion of the Immigration Practitioners Association, that our relations mean we must act " If there is a real risk that a result of such a transfer, the data subject might be subject to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and any other violation of his or her fundamental rights." I would like to hear from the Minister, whether he concurs or endorses with that view, and if so, whether he will give some further consideration as to whether any this application might occur in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accordance with this. I speak to amendment 99 in my name. It is not directly related to name. It is not directly related to the previous amendments, other than by the collection of biometric data. My question really is about what database has been checked against... Which database the biometric data has been checked against, and it has been checked against, and it comes from the briefing helpfully provided by the Minister and his advisers, prior to the bill being advisers, prior to the bill being laid.

At that briefing, I asked whether the databases were being checked for particular purposes only advice we received was that it couldn't be used by the police. I found that confusing when I re-read found that confusing when I re-read the bill and saw that there is a law enforcement clause. So, the enforcement clause. So, the questions today are about whether or questions today are about whether or not the databases are being checked for these particular reasons. You could argue that if people are entering for the first time, it may
13:37
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
entering for the first time, it may be that the people who are checking against should never have their data in these databases because they have never been to the UK but many people arrive, sometimes illegally, who have been here before and left and then are returning. So, it's important to establish, number one, obviously, their identity, but the particular databases I am interested in are, first of all, the unsolved crime scene database. Crimes happen every day. Samples are taken, DNA, fingerprint, sometimes photographs now.

And of course, not all crimes are solved, so databases are kept of crime is not solved. So is the biometric data of people entering being checked against that? The second group are obviously the people who are wanted. They might be wanted in this country or in other countries, and it maybe that we choose not to let the third country know this person has arrived. But it means we should know we are at risk of importing someone who was wanted somewhere else.

In public quite importantly, given the group of countries that many people coming to our country are from, in Afghanistan, many were murdered and badly named IIEDs, the catalogue for material, which is now sold in this country, should we ever discover the person who carried out the crime. So, it would certainly be ironic, if someone was to claim to want to come to this country legally and had previously killed or maimed one of our soldiers, and at least we should be aware of it.

Are we checking it against that database? So, it's quite a specific set of questions, but it relies on the fact the data should be checked. On the advice we received at the briefing was it was not. So, really, it is the purpose of this amendment to get on record exactly what it has been checked against.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, I want to support Lady Hamwee's amendments. That have already been so ably supported from across the committee, supported from across the committee, I think pretty much every voice so far from the committee has been in support of Lady Hamwee's amendments. And I think there are very useful And I think there are very useful humanitarian mirrors to the arguments made in the previous group about the importance of datasharing about the importance of datasharing following for some purposes.

I think Lady Hamwee's amendments 97 and 98 in particular, but very much endorsing Lord Kerr and the noble Lord Alton, the need for breath, and Lord Alton, the need for breath, and possibly a government amendment. -- The need for breath. I think these are so super pathetic to the government's stated policy of government's stated policy of smashing the gangs, and is really quite perverse. An outcome. hearing people, having to resort to people smugglers for so I hope my noble friend, the Minister will see this is a no-brainer, bring terms of practical facilitation of government policy.

Just because I talked about these amendments being so much the humanitarian mirror of the need sometimes to practically share data, in this case, biometric information for the purposes of giving effect to lawful family union, don't shoot the messenger, but I really want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR contain very broad law- enforcement exemptions. But broad is not blanket. And I hope that I can
13:42
13:44
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
whole. And I must repeat the welcome whole. And I must repeat the welcome of clauses 34 and 35 in this bill which obviously seek to increase the fix ability when taking biometric information. -- Flexibility. I don't information. -- Flexibility. I don't want to repeat all the cases being talked about already and during the course of this debate. But simply course of this debate. But simply about the practicalities of how this about the practicalities of how this change might take place. I have had the experience of seeking and the experience of seeking and bringing people, and requiring their biometric information, which was biometric information, which was from one country to another.

Very from one country to another. Very helpfully, the British Foreign helpfully, the British Foreign Office officials in one country put the machine in the back of their car, and in the boot, and drove it car, and in the boot, and drove it to another country, and took... I am not going to give the details, not going to give the details, otherwise they might get into trouble. But they brought it and regularly, they have taken the biometric information of people who biometric information of people who have visited the noble Lords part of Wales, among others.

That might give Wales, among others. That might give them a clue. Basically, I also read today in the newspapers, a government is to provide officials of the Home Office with portable biometric equipment. Obviously, in my day, when these things were big enough to go in the boot, they are VOC now going to be even smaller. So, practically, taking biometric information is no longer a matter of a large machine, which, you know what it is like, when you have to go to hospital for a scan, it is no longer the big machines now, the machinery is getting smaller.

We are now talking about portable matters. So, clearly that can be done. And it makes it more straightforward for people, therefore, to take the machinery closer to the people who are fulfilling the legal route which the government has set in front of them, and in 2024 of course, remember that 10,000 of those who came only family reunion were children. The second thing is, whether or not the government is interested in using other bodies to take the biometric information, I don't know what the cover but has already done on this matter, clearly, of course, I saw him checking his phone, if President Machen has decided that we are going to have a family reunion, biometrics taken in France, at least there might be some information we need to know anyway, about these matters.

But it does strike me that often, when we have no embassies, that we rely on the embassies of other countries, friendly countries, and also we rely a lot on United Nations personnel to take tasks for us, in a joint way, with the government. As I observed in Cairo, with literally hundreds of thousands of people escaping from Sudan and turning up at the doors of the United Nations at the doors of the United Nations My questions really are this seems to be the practical option.

Is that the case that the government is mindful that there are people who can deliver this on behalf of the Government because whatever you take biometric the, is transmitted digitally anyway. It means that people no longer have to cross borders not just once but twice between one country and another. One country nearby perhaps with all of their documentation and all those requirements that will make it difficult for them to do. It seems to me the question here is not about increasing any numbers of people coming to this country, but it's about making it safer, and I hope the noble Lord will see that and give us some indication as to whether they are prepared to take this matter forward or even accept the amendment which my noble friend has made before us.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just have a few points to make on amendments and contributions made on amendments and contributions made which I hope will mean the Minister can cover them when he responsive to the group. On the first two amendments, and family reunion, I amendments, and family reunion, I support the concept of that -- on a family reunion, I support the family reunion, I support the concept of that. I do think, just to
13:48
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
concept of that. I do think, just to give a balanced argument here, it is important we make sure we collect biometric information to make sure that people who are applying are the people that they say they are. That is the reason why I think the Minister will confirm why it is important to get the biometric application before the application application before the application is submitted. So you know the person applying is indeed entitled. Clearly, if we can make it easier to collect that information, that would be helpful.

One of the challenges and the list of countries that was read out earlier by noble Lords is that in those countries we often don't have our own personal for very sensible reasons -- personnel. If someone is applying for family reunion, we have to be mindful of the risks that British officials might run to be in a position to might run to be in a position to collect biometric data. It might be problematic to do so. I'm not sure it is quite so straightforward as some noble Lords have suggested.

But some noble Lords have suggested. But I suspect, given the progressive technology which is much more portable and transportable, that we can make some improvements. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about how we can make it easier for people with a legitimate family reunion claim. But also make sure we maintain our border security. I just wanted to pick up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made, about data protection. There is a bit of danger here where we sort of get a bit focused on processes and forget what the point is.

If a child, someone over 16 but under 18, is coming to the United Kingdom in order to get to a safer location, what we shouldn't do - and we have as they need to be satisfied that they are not someone who presents a risk, who is a criminal or terrorist from abroad and we know that you can be those things while still being a child - but the danger if we are not careful, if we overdo the GDPR peace and won't take the biometric data from a child, and in doing so we are not then able sensibly to give that child protection in the United Kingdom, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

If the point nose to spite our face. If the point is to have the child have a successful asylum claim... I do think there is a risk of missing the point. There is a bit of proportionality and balance your. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the general thrust of the argument that he is putting to the committee. He has used the phrase getting the balance right. That is what I was arguing. We must not lose sight that sometimes these are children or young people and we do owe them a duty of care as well. So, getting the balance and not trying to categorise them all as trying to categorise them all as being potential criminals. But I do being potential criminals.

But I do recognise there is that potential and therefore we have got to get the and therefore we have got to get the balance right. We want to know balance right. We want to know they're going to be used in measure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they're going to be used in measure. As a supplement to that, I think the balance is already there in the international standards. It's just making sure there is an appropriate adult. That does not harm any of the ambitions of the noble Lord. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambitions of the noble Lord. It's what we would normally expect to do for minors. Both of those interventions and indeed in the close asset out there indeed in the close asset out there are provisions to ensure there is an appropriate person who is not representative of the government present. It is important we don't lose sight of the purpose of this exercise coverage is to enable people to come to Britain where they are legally qualified to do so but they don't present a risk to us.

I think that's an important balance to strike. I strongly support the thrust of the question from Lord Hogan about the use to which this information should be put. Again, in the modern world, the way we can process data, and certainly my experience of how we use this, it is done in a proportionate way and protect people, because actually by checking information against databases, we are not interested... Our security agencies do not have the resources to spend time worrying about people who do not present a challenge to our country.

He sets out some very important questions which I hope the Minister can deal with when he closes. I just wanted to put that in context so that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister covers it when he responds. I'm very grateful to all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. At present, we are not currently At present, we are not currently minded to support the amendments 97
13:53
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
minded to support the amendments 97 and 98. Entirely understand the rationale behind them and many noble Lords have spoken powerfully in support of the amendments. The concern that we have is simply an operational one. It was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Harper and that is the operational implications of these amendments. This may be very broad and far-reaching they seem -- far-reaching. They seem to create implication for the UK government to create biometric facilities across multiple jurisdictions, regardless of cost or feasibility.

Close 34 applies specifically to authorised persons -- clause. That is in the definition of the clause. People authorised by the Secretary of State. That could come at an unknown and potentially significant cost. Are we to set up a metric processing helps in every conflict-adjacent state? The noble Lord stated that could easily be done. I remain to be convinced. I think Lord Harper was very pertinent about this. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the Minister if the government is to support this.

What is the logistical burden on government? The final amendment in this group, amendment 99, in the name of login -- Lord Hogan-Howe, is about which organisations will have access to biometric information. It brings biometric information. It brings with it as ever Lord Hogan-Howe's customary focus. It is a very welcome amendment. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will take this opportunity in his response to set out which agencies would have access to this information in order to fulfil the information set out in clause 35.

Enclosing, I want to reiterate that we need to make sure that in the solutions, in the technical solutions we are discussing in relation to this fundamental issue, we are firm and robust and making sure we take steps to mitigate and ultimately end the crisis of illegal migration, not exacerbated. -- Not exacerbate it. exacerbated. -- Not exacerbate it.
13:56
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I think there is a common interest between his Majesty opposition and ourselves in these issues. I just want to state the important point about close 34 which is that biometrics are important for conducting checks on a person's identity and suitability before they come to the UK. It's a perfectly legitimate government objective and the purposes of clause 34 is to establish that in relation to the powers of the bill. And the powers in the bill aim to strengthen the government's ability to respond flexibly in the situation that noble Lords across the house have mentioned, which is particularly crisis situations.

The bill provides the power to take biometrics by which I mean fingerprints or facial images of the applicant, without the need for an application to be submitted. I think that has a general positive will come from a number of noble Lords that have spoken, including my noble friend 's chakra party -- Baroness Chakrabrti and others. We need to determine whether the person poses a security threat. The bill will ensure that the power to collect biometrics outside of a visa application process will only take base in very tightly defined circumstances, were individuals are seeking to leave a particular country due to a crisis or any other situation where this government facilitates the exit.

Now, before I move on to the amendments with my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, can I just, I hope, address the issue that Lord Hogan- Howe has mentioned. I hope I can reassure him on these matters. It is the case that were biometrics are collected in connection with nationality applications, the police will be able to conduct their own checks against the metrics capture. The police currently have access to this data when the biometrics are enrolled into the Immigration and Asylum Act metric system.

They can Asylum Act metric system. They can be then watched against the police series of fingerprints and other sets, including images of scenes of crime and other information used to identify high-risk individuals. That is another point Lord Hogan-Howe mentioned. This could be be particularly important for individuals involved in counterterrorism activity. The police make checks against the Home Office fingerprints database to assess whether the person might well be also a foreign national offenders.

Those checks that are undertaken, I think, will be able to ensure, I hope, that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe withdraws his amendment based on that assurance I have given him. I will look forward to hearing what he has to say in due course. The Noble Baronesses lady can we -- Baroness Hamwee, supported by other noble Lords, has raised important issues which aim to defer or excuse the request for biometrics from applicants. Biometrics are normally required to be taken as part of an application to conduct checks on a person's identity.

As the noble Lord Harper has referred to, that is an important security, and the noble Lord Cameron has said the same in relation to his contribution. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the decision maker about their identity. And the decision maker may decide it is appropriate for the requirement for an application to be made at a visa application centre or indeed to enrol biometrics to be deferred or enrol biometrics to be deferred or Let me say to noble Lords, I really do recognise there is never the circumstance where that is ideal.

The crossing border issue that has been mentioned, the fleeing from persecution, from terror or from walk on which noble Lords have referred to, are innocent difficulties applicants may face in reaching the visa application centre, however, the purpose of this bill is to strengthen the government's responsibility to respond flexibly in these areas. The bill does not extend this flexibility to family reunion, but there are solutions such as working with international partner, where it has been used in exceptional circumstances.

And the whole office, my colleagues, we are continuing to assess where broader policy changes are needed to ban a very genuine humanitarian requirement. The very genuine way to ensure that those who need to have the flexibility have that flexibility. The number of points made in relation to this by noble Lords, I just wanted to say that there is an absolute understanding that the challenges faced by some refugee families are very difficult and we are trying to work to make that much more accessible.

The introduction, and I think the noble Lord German refer to this, the e-visa's by 2025 will this, the e-visa's by 2025 will double that, and being able to collect visas, we understand applicants will face difficulties, we understand we need to work with partners, and we are going to continue to assess whether the broader policy change is needed. And again, if I say so, the debate we have had today is helpful in, again, pushing that assessment, so we examined those areas as a whole, but I will just say to all noble Lords, to date, collection of biometric steering evacuations has happened.

-- During evacuations. It is not an unusual circumstance. An operation unusual circumstance. An operation in Afghanistan 2021, it was taken on arrival in the UK. Sudan, 2023, biometric checks were undertaken in third countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Before travelling to the UK. Gaza, 2023, following the disgraceful Hamas attacks, in Israel. The FCDO facilitated the exit of British nationals and other eligible persons from Gaza into either Egypt or Jordan. And in some instances, this included individuals who had never previously submitted biometric information, as part of a Visa application.

So, there are ways around that challenge. And we are trying to examine that, and see where it can be improved. But in the context of family migration, in the context of family migration reunion today, I would respectfully hope that noble Lords can reflect on what I have said. And we will reflect on what they have said. But for the moment, I wish they would withdraw,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I will certainly point to the noble Lord. I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister. He will recall the the Minister. He will recall the example I gave you my remarks of a two-year-old boy is Sudan wanting to be reunited with his grandmother and be reunited with his grandmother and it took 11 months, to be able to do that. And it required transportation information, halfway across Africa, in order to achieve it. Surely, he would look at those countries, which would look at those countries, which are generating the largest number of migrants, regular journeys, some put migrants, regular journeys, some put it, who end up in boats in the channel, we all know Sudan is one of channel, we all know Sudan is one of the foremost of those countries.

And see in those specific examples if we see in those specific examples if we can do more, to try and prevent people living in the first place by dealing with issues like family reunion in a more expeditious manner. And I'm not asking him to necessarily come forward with amendments to that effect. But even if he were to facilitate further if he were to facilitate further discussion with his department and, discussion with his department and, particularly the FCDO, to see how that might be generated, I think that would be helpful to the committee.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee. I am very grateful, just want to let my noble friend respond.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let my noble friend respond. Sorry to come in on the coattails of the noble Lord Alton again, but my noble friend, the minister, talked about flexibility and the need for flexibility, surely, Lady Hamwee's amendments extending governmental flexibility, to facilitate the possibility of biometrics, of people in family reunion cases, being taken in all places. But the noble Lord opposite is concerned this is putting an obligation on the Secretary of State for the Home Department Secretary of State is the one that will authorised people and he will not make the authorisations if a think they are not practical or burdensome, and I asked my noble friend to reflect on that, and see it as additional tax ability, not an additional burden.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Both in response to the noble Lord Alton and my noble friend, Baroness Chakrabarti, think again, I Baroness Chakrabarti, think again, I have said this already on my have said this already on my preamble to the response, today, the Home Office continues to assess whether broad policy changes are needed to balance that very humanitarian concern, and the noble Lord legs a very strong point about Lord legs a very strong point about a child, aged two, and the length of time for a reunion, but I think will time for a reunion, but I think will fall in the assessment of a broader humanitarian concern.

And we need to balance that with security requirements, self-evidently, in the requirements, self-evidently, in the case he has put to us, a two-year- case he has put to us, a two-year- old child would not pose that type of threat, so I think it is of threat, so I think it is important, but I simply say to the movers of the amendments today, the purpose of the clause is to provide purpose of the clause is to provide assurances we have got, they are testing that.

I accept that. We will examine and look at the points that examine and look at the points that have been made. But I think there are alternative ways of achieving are alternative ways of achieving that objective today. And therefore, I ask her to withdraw the amendments, and I hope I have amendments, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, but I will also, because I will, give way to the noble Lord Kerr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are all on the same side here. I appreciate the spirit of the Minister's remarks, I appreciate Minister's remarks, I appreciate what he said about how he will reflect on what we have said from all sides of the House. But it's true that there are alternative true that there are alternative ways. It is true UMC HR can help, -- ways. It is true UMC HR can help, -- UNHCR can help, but if you are in UNHCR can help, but if you are in Afghanistan, there is no way they can help you, until you have gone to Pakistan.

Getting across the Khyber these days isn't easy. Particularly if you are a child, asset is more than 50% of the family reunion cases. So, the Minister's answer, I appreciate the spirit of the appreciate the spirit of the Minister's answer, but it is not a Minister's answer, but it is not a complete answer, and I pressed to go on on the points today, and can I on on the points today, and can I say also there is a very direct way that one can make available, on site, in country, these centres.

And that would be to reopen embassies. I am talking about Syria. I do not know why we don't have an embassy in Damascus now. For all sorts of political reasons, given its significance in the whole of the Arab world, we should have an embassy in Damascus, and of course, if we did have an embassy, we would have a visa centre there. I do hope it is not a wish to avoid having to pay for a visa centre in Syria which is causing the Foreign Office not to reopen the embassy in Damascus.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord brings great experience in the Foreign Office, and he will know it better than I and he will know it better than I do. I am Home Office person, rather than a Foreign Office person. But than a Foreign Office person. But I'm trying to assure the House, but I'm trying to assure the House, but I think the points being made are a challenge to the government, but we challenge to the government, but we believe that the clause as drafted meet those obligations with that flexibility through the international migration organisations, the UNHCR, and organisations, the UNHCR, and others.

Again, I will go back to, I mentioned operation pity in Afghanistan, 15,000 people were evacuated, biometrics connected evacuated, biometrics connected post-arrival to the United Kingdom. post-arrival to the United Kingdom. The sedan evacuation, just under 2,500 individuals were evacuated with biometric checks taken in third-party countries such as Saudi Arabia. Gaza 250 British nationals were supported to exit and were supported to exit and biometrics were taken. So the mechanism is there. I have had mechanism is there. I have had strong representations from across strong representations from across the House across this issue, but I'm trying to put the position of where clause 34 is.

And I hope that with my comments, the noble Lady can withdraw the amendments. And also still, not to forget, the noble Lord Hogan-Howe who may want to intervene. He does want to intervene, so I shall allow the noble Lord to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the Minister. First of all, I want to say I am broadly reassured. There is just one area I reassured. There is just one area I think he might reassure himself and therefore me, he mentioned about the Afghanistan IED material for a probable difficult to talk about publicly, --. Probably difficult to talk about publicly, but if you could confirm it has been checked against the database, I would be against the database, I would be reassured that that might help him.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If he will allow me, and I have given a broad description, the police have access to terrorist police have access to terrorist databases of information and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

databases of information and biometrics generally. I think it is best not to The moment, about specific

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The moment, about specific databases. -- It is best not to talk at the moment about specific at the moment about specific databases. But I believe it will be covered by the proposals, but I will check with my colleagues who have a check with my colleagues who have a responsibility for that rather than inadvertently giving the House information which proves information which proves subsequently not to be accurate, which I wouldn't want to give the which I wouldn't want to give the House.

And I welcome the noble Baroness responding and withdrawing the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think that is the third time the Minister has asked me
14:12
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
third time the Minister has asked me to do so, and I will. Not quite yet, but I do so for those waiting for the next business, that I am not going to go down the side roads of the summit and what might happen on the summit and what might happen on the northern shores of France, no Syria, as much as I would like to, given my heritage for nor the Lord German's escapades, with MAREN -- Barometric equipment. The reliance on smugglers, as I did myself, I just wrote on the term ironic, really, in the circumstances.

Can I say again to the House, and to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, that we are not opposing. In fact, we are positively supporting clause 34. We are not challenging Lisa biometrics. We are looking at the procedures and candidates of application for clause 34. -- Not challenging these biometrics. The Minister referred to the possibilities of what can be done in exceptional circumstances, that is always a term I find quite difficult and it seems to me that a family, disunited as it were, in the circumstances, should be regarded as exceptional.

I understand, from this point of view, that may be different. But frankly, to travel from Sudan to Saudi Arabia, twice, that would be very exceptional in itself. Given the support for the concept, if you like, on what is created in these amendments, across the House, as he has said, I wonder if it's something we might find a moment to discuss after committee stage. And before report. Because I do think they should be away -- There should be a way of taking forward how the procedures can be used without disrupting the government's concerns.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 98.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 98, Baroness Hamwee, not Amendment 98, Baroness Hamwee, not moved. The question is clause 30. Part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content savage. Clause 35, amendment 99, not savage. Clause 35, amendment 99, not moved. The question is clause 35 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is clause 36 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House resumed. We will then move to moving resumed. We will then move to moving to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will not return it to Metrology Bill will not return it to this bill until 40 minute timer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill until 40 minute timer. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content savage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The content savage. --. The contents have it. They have passed the Universal
14:16
14:17
None Portrait Legislation: Product Regulation and Metrology Bill - consideration of Commons amendments
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration Consideration of Consideration of Commons amendments. Lord Young.
14:17
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Lord Young. I beg to move that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments are now considered. The question is that the Commons amendments are now considered. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment one, Lord Young. I do move that the house agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do move that the house agree with the Commons amendments. Turning with the Commons amendments. Turning to amendment 1, the government has been clear in its intention to maintain strong relations with maintain strong relations with devolved governments and to ensure that devolution settlements are that devolution settlements are respected in both principal and respected in both principal and practice. There will be a statutory requirement on the Secretary of requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain consent of the devolved governments were regulations contain provisions within competencies.

This amendment within competencies. This amendment goes further than the amendments tabled during the passage of this bill through this House. These only provided a consult mechanism. This amendment provides for consent mechanism and provides a decisive mechanism and provides a decisive role for devolved ministers. It will also underpin continued collaboration to develop product collaboration to develop product regulations in all parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to thank Lord Holme whose knowledge in this area I found extremely beneficial and help.

Whilst he has not in able to speak today, I met with him on 17 June, and he is happy for me to say that he is pleased with the government's approach to devolution in this bill. I would like to thank him for his engagement and contributions during the passage of this legislation. I would also like to thank Lord Sharpe, Lord Wigley, Baroness Brinton with whom I have engaged on this amendment. I'm pleased to inform the House that the devolved legislators have all granted legislative consent motions to the bill.

I would like to thank ministerial colleagues and officials in the devolved governments for their engagement and collaborative approach to this bill. Amendments two and three are technical amendments. The first deals with a technical correction to the drafting of the bill, and I will briefly outline the need for it. The amendment makes a drafting change to close 34 -- clause 34. This is subject to the statutory instrument procedure. The previous drafting includes claue 9 which was an unattended unintended consequence -- unintended consequence.

Clause 9 Does not confer a power to make a particular type of substantive provision. Rather, it specifies that regulations can amend existing provisions, distinct from making fresh regulations. This technical amendment removes this unintended impact by removing the reference to clause 9. Moving to the final technical amendment, the house is aware that the government has been clear that this bill will ensure we have ability to deliver an effective product regulatory regime in the United Kingdom. The amendment the government makes in the other place is a necessary technical amendment to correct an amendment that was inserted at Lords Third Reading.

To ensure that powers of the bill can be used effectively by introducing cost recovery provisions in accordance with clause 8. I begged to move. The question is that the house do agree with the comments in their amendment. their amendment.
14:21
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise briefly to welcome the Commons amendment 1. It's very pleasing to see this government, in contrast to the last government, acknowledging that we have nations on these islands who have devolved powers that need to be respected. And indeed, when talking about standards here, hopefully an understanding that devolution can also mean divergence in terms of democratic choices, and within that Limits of the Internal Markets Act, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to lift to higher standards if that's what they want.

And hopefully, this will help to facilitate that. Since I'm on my feet, just do just a couple of -- just a couple of short remarks. I want to thank the Minister and his team for the discussion they gave on this bill. And to reiterate the point I made then and stress the point that as this becomes law and starts to implement, most of this is not going to have impact until we have regulations. Three points I hope the government will be keeping .

One is that where we are now is behind the best global standards, and this is an area where we should be talking about being world leading for the health of our nation and the health of our environment. Secondly, to acknowledge that we are already on a poisoned planet and in an environment where our water, soil and air and indeed our food and homes are saturated with far too many chemicals that are damaging to our health, and to again environmental health. And thirdly, that we have to consider the cocktail of fact.

That most of the testing of products when companies go to put this product or that chemical into the environment, they go, " What is the safe limit for this product? Was good but all of our bodies, young people, our environment are being exposed to rising levels of micro-plastics, of pesticides, of PFAS and other chemicals and products. This has to be considered when we consider what is allowed for the future. It's going out into that already poisoned environment.
14:23
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I wish to just say a few words about Commons amendment 2. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the amendments and referring to the purpose of Commons amendment 2. As he clarified, what the Commons amendment 2 now does is to take clause 9 out of the list of those parts of this bill, which will in due course be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. So, from my point of view, that is a substantive change, as compared to what we saw previously in the bill.

Now, clause 9, of course, relates to existing product requirements. But what it provides for is a power to make regulations relating to existing product requirements as if they were product regulations for product requirements under this new legislation. Now, the application of clause 9. Clause 9 allows for provisions described in sections 2, 4, 6 and 7. 7 subsection is where I 4, 6 and 7. 7 subsection is where I am concerned -- subsection 7.

What does this subsection tell us which tells us that product regulations may be made by reference to existing -- to relevant EU law. From my point of view and I would rehearse all the debate we've had, but they are particularly important debates. This is a provision, the use of which, in my view, is significant. The occasions when we choose to set out regulations in a product requirements by reference to EU law are important questions. As it happens, my view is that actually happens, my view is that actually any use of clause 2, subsection 7...

In that sense, it is not technical, it is substantive. It means existing product requirements can be amended in the future by regulations which relate to relevant EU law and apply new product requirements on changed -- or changed product requirements by reference to EU law. I think that a significant. This is a significant change. I reiterate the point I made previously in debates that the affirmative resolution should have been used in relation to any application of EU law and making our own product requirements.

We look forward with some anticipation to when this is going to happen and in relation to what will happen. The noble Lady might be interested in this. Who knows, we have just seen reiteration of EU legislation relating to reach. We don't know to what extent the reach regulations are going to be reproduced in this country in the form which we have now seen in the European Union. The same might apply to AI. I have seen spec elation that AI... Regulations relating to the European Union's AI act could be reproduced in this country in relation to product regulation using relevant EU under AI mechanism.

I don't know what the government's intention is. All I'm saying is that I think it is a substantive change and I wish the government and the original drafting of the bill and in this respect had used the affirmative procedure so we could examine them when it happens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On behalf of Lord Fox who is improving and I hope will be with us improving and I hope will be with us very soon and these Liberal Democrat benches, I thank the government for benches, I thank the government for the passage of the bill. I thank the Minister for the meeting we had after the bill's passage in the Commons and the discussions we had. We welcome the first government amendment ensuring better amendment ensuring better consultation with devolved government on relevant regulations.

This was an issue that we raised at the Lord's stages of the bill and it is good to see progress has been is good to see progress has been made. In the comments, our honourable friend Clive Jones, the honourable friend Clive Jones, the MP for Wokingham spoke about by MP for Wokingham spoke about by MP for Wokingham spoke about by British scheme. -- Buy British. The British scheme. -- Buy British. The detail of that is gone.

I'm sorry the government has chosen not to do it. I hope the government will take principle seriously because actually principle seriously because actually what we really need to do now is help consumers make informed choices about supporting domestic products. I hear the points that Lord Lansley made and we had a long debate about this balance. I won't go into the detail at all but I'm just reminded that we discovered that when we left the EU, we also left a series of other bits of the EU that provided such serious consequences that the last government had to make emergency regulations to continue the old regulation rules.

So, I think it is good there is some provision that means if there is carry over or if it is very similar, than actually... I'm sure Parliament would want to be consulted on it. Finally, and in the wake of the successful state visit of resident Macron -- President Macron, you would be surprised to hear a say that we really: this government to perhaps move a bit faster and lay the groundwork for a customs union with the EU, which we believe will deliver five greater -- far greater benefits, not least for product regulations.
14:30
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Festival, I am very grateful to Lady Bennett for reminding us of some of the background situation with which we deal when we are with which we deal when we are And I also thank my noble friend, Lord Lansley, his reference to relevant EU law takes us back really now, just to pause and reflect on this bill. As the noble Lord, the Minister will know, it was greeted from these benches in the other place.

As a bad bill. A Trojan horse bill. Because the bill, as has been explained by my noble friend, does a lot more behind-the-scenes than appears on the surface, and it does so through secondary legislation. So I thought we should just remind ourselves, as indeed the House of Commons reminded itself, that the highly prestigious committee of this House, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reform committee, took a view on this bill. And the noble Lord the Minister will remember that he did have a special remember that he did have a special meeting with the committee to try and convince them they were wrong.

But I will just repeat their view, because it is particularly relevant to the point raised by my noble friend and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. -- Lady Brinton. The committee said this, after the meeting with the noble Lord, the Minister, we remain of the view that the delegation to ministers, of lawmaking powers in this bill, involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent, from the legislature to the executive. And, they continued, the government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this bill that give ministers such wide powers, to rewrite in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes, for products and metrology.

So, we see, from these metrology. So, we see, from these benches, this bill has a terrible step back, and is a Trojan horse, because multi us to EU red tape, to which we will have no say. -- And will tie us to EU red tape. At this bill, the government will be able to restrict Britain's innovators with over burdensome regulations, which are not in the bill at the present time. But are going to appear at a later stage.

So, I do recall, because I was a witness, although I didn't participate directly, it was my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who, together with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the dynamic duo, came in to save the British pint. And I pray to beat them both and I hope Lord Fox will be back to us soon, fully restored, but he did a soon, fully restored, but he did a great service acting, but I worry about the sweeping views of Henry VIII powers and I just say to the Minister, I hope you will reflect on these comments.

If I refer him once again, he will know that I have done this only times before. There was the most marvellous lecture, from the director-general, in October 2024, entitled The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism. And our Attorney- General laid out a clear path the government should file. And they certainly have transgressed in bringing forward this bill with so many Henry VIII powers, and so many details, that is still to be decided by secondary legislation.

So I just hope that in his remarks, the noble Lord, the Minister, not only responding to the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, just to try and put in context what exactly the timeline is going to be for the use, the extensive use, and is rightly extended to the devolved territories, the very important use of these delegated power, what is the timeline? What can we look forward to? And can we be sure that there will be proper consultation and that this House will have an opportunity of giving its view on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

each and every step taken under this bill. Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if I might gently intervene and say he wasn't present, but Lord and say he wasn't present, but Lord Fox and others from our bench has reminded Lord Epsom, and others from reminded Lord Epsom, and others from those benches, that actually, this bill was drafted by the previous government, with the Henry VIII government, with the Henry VIII powers as they appear in the bill today. So, whilst I understand that, you know, times have moved on and you know, times have moved on and seats have changed, but actually, seats have changed, but actually, much of the bill we see now is the one that had been drafted for the previous government, and was delayed, because of the general

**** Possible New Speaker ****

election. I am happy to respond to the noble Baroness, lady Brinton, when she referred to, not Lord Epsom, but Lord Sharpe of Epsom, because she is Lord Sharpe of Epsom, because she is also under a misunderstanding. I was also under a misunderstanding. I was very proud to share the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. And Legislation Scrutiny Committee. And if she had done her homework, she would have seen that I led the opposition to the previous opposition to the previous government's attempt to try and pass government's attempt to try and pass secondary legislation powers that would not be subject to purpose with any in this House.

I don't want to engage in party politics, unlike the noble Baroness. But I just think it is wrong for governments to... And I just wish we had some of our previous, particularly Lord Judge, who taught me, whatever the complexion of the government, government shouldn't overreach

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves by abolishing legislation through secondary legislation. He is absolutely right and I very carefully talked about his predecessor on this particular bill. predecessor on this particular bill. And I think the work that he and his secondary legislature scrutiny committee did was admirable and quoted frequently from it.
14:38
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords, firstly, I am grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon, to this contributed this afternoon, to this very short debate. Look, I don't want to open the whole debate as well, we have gone through committee stage, report stage, so many points they noble Lord brought up, we have debated at length on this, in terms of delegated powers and so on. But just a point on the DPRRC, addressing the noble Lord's point, and we take the points made by noble Lords, regarding the need for adequate scrutiny on a pass in the bill.

We would generally like to thank them and their engagement on this issue. Now, as introduced, the bill did provide for new regulations to be subjected to firmer -- Procedure. I have been asked for a timeframe, when the bill gets Royal Assent, there are a number of relations that will have been placed before the House, pending this bill getting Royal Assent, to do with noise and various other aspects of regulation. And I have also been told by my officials, that in any one year, there wouldn't be any more than six to 10 regulations, so we are not going to get an avalanche, my Lords.

This included emergency powers, in creating and widening, any existing criminal offences. We have heard the concerns raised and have gone further to provide additional parliamentary scrutiny, in those areas. My Lords, as I mentioned in my opening speech, we brought forward an amendment to correct the drafting error. As we have heard through the contributed earlier, by Baroness Bennett, Baroness Brinton, I mean, on the whole principle, this bill is not the end of it, it is actually the start of it.

At the committee stage, report stage, there will be regulations, and noble Lords were allowed to debate on legislation procedures, so there is a continuation more regulators to come. Obviously, taking into account some of those that we have to update. So, during the debate on this legislation we had in this House, this scrutiny of relations is an important issue and one that not only the government recognises, but sought to address full stops so I give my thanks to the work of all noble Lords, to bring scrutiny arrangements within this bill.

This has improved the bill. And is a testament, to the role of this House, in the scrutiny of legislation. I say to noble Lords, that they have undoubtedly made this a better bill. Finally, turning to amendment one, specifically this is an important amendment. It demonstrates that by listening carefully, listening sincerely, and acting in good faith, as Baroness Brinton said earlier, that the devolved government and governments can come together, or shared solutions. My Lords, this legislation provides a new framework, for product regulation, and metrology, that is agile, future facing, and tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom.

This amendment will make sure that this framework works for all parts of the United Kingdom. As we reach the end of this bill's passage, I would to personally extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have been part of the debate and have been so supportive of me taking this built the House, the contributors have shown in this House at its very best. I would like to thank the engagement on the following noble Lords. Lord Sharpe, for His Majesty's opposition, and the immense contribution, of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who I wish him well, I spoke to him earlier this week.

And he did say he might come in a weeks time, or thereabouts, look forward to welcoming him back to the House, back to the chamber, rather. I am sure there will be, that all noble Lords will be more than willing to have a pint with me, not a schooner, to celebrate the passage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this. My Lords, with that, I beg to move. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the House of Commons on their amendment one. As many as are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Lord Leong, amendment 24 I beg to move formally this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move formally this House to agree with the House of Commons, an amendment to and free unlock. The question is how to do agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is how to do agree with House of Commons on a two and a free unlock. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, as we were not due to return to the bill until 1454, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to the bill until 1454, I beg to move the House do now adjourn, during pleasure, until that point. The question is the House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House do now adjourn during pleasure, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
14:43
None Portrait House Adjourned during Pleasure
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, Lord My Lords, Lord Chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. the My Lords. the house My Lords. the house is My Lords. the house is again My Lords. the house is again in
14:55
14:55
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
resolve itself into a committee. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. We now come to amendment 100. Baroness Ludford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to move amendment 100 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to move amendment 100 and speak to 101. Both those in myself -- in the name of myself and Lord -- in the name of myself and Lord German. I also wish to speak to amendment 106 in the name of amendment 106 in the name of Baroness Hamwee -- to which Baroness Baroness Hamwee -- to which Baroness Baroness Hamwee -- to which Baroness Hamwee is a signatory. I hope that these are pushing at a very open these are pushing at a very open door with the Government.

What they door with the Government. What they try to do is to put some flesh on the bones of various aspirational the bones of various aspirational texts from the last five years. Also, to give some tactical and Also, to give some tactical and operational content to what has remained a little bit declaratory remained a little bit declaratory here so far. May be in replying, the here so far. May be in replying, the Minister will be able to give some information about what's going to happen to implement the reset document of May 19.

The first amendment 100 asks for the amendment 100 asks for the Government to produce an annual report on the cooperation with Euro poll. The Secretary of State is required to produce a report on cooperation between the U.K.'s enforcement agencies and Europol, this will provide an impetus to have something to report on. Paragraph 3 of amendment 100 suggest that the annual report should include actions taken during the previous year to cooperate with Europol, progress in reducing people smuggling and human trafficking, and planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol.

It's not just a report for report's sake. The Home Office have quite a bit to do as it is but in order to see -- say... The Second Amendment, number 101, is about the Secretary of State, requiring the Secretary of State to seek to establish a joint task force with Europol for the purposes of cooperation Which are disrupting trafficking corporations -- cooperation, secure border security and that ilk. It does take two to tango so where everything is expecting the UK government to establish a joint task force with establish a joint task force with Europol on its own.

Amendment 106... This is a request for unilateral engagement with the Secretary of State providing resources to agencies. The police forces in England and Wales, British Transport Police for the progressive enhancing their participation in -- Europols antitrafficking activities. Just to back at the history -- just to look back at the history of aspirations between UK and Europol. It started five years ago. We were once extremely significant in Europol. I've never said this in the chamber before.

It riles somewhat. For 10 years, a senior British police figure was the distinguished director of Europol. We were in pole position, you might say. We might we must make the best of what we have, Of which the objective is to establish relations with the relevant authorities in preventing and combating serious and terrorism and the forms of crime of which a common interest. So, that is good. That is the objective of corporate relations. There is not an awful lot of concrete specification there.

Perhaps one of the most concrete ones is the provision of advice and support in individual criminal investigations as well as operational operations in article 5, six, seven. And then after 568 it is that the UK shall designate national contact at the central point of contact between European and competent authorities of the UK. And I imagine that has been done and is the National Crime Agency. And then the UK shows you cannot sicken one or more liaison officers to Europe.

And vice versa. The Europe liaison officers in this direction. So, that is over five as old. Then there was an agreement in December 2023, so that was already nearly 4 years to get produced, looking to produce that is updated, working in an administrative arrangement establishing cooperative relationships between the authorities of the UK and Europol, long winded in its wording. At this, again, talks about liaison officers, the parties agreeing that liaison officers by the UK shall work to facilitate cooperation and disagreement.

And under this arrangement as well as the agreement. I am not sure whether liaison officers have, actually, maybe you can tell us that they have. They were also under these working arrangements documents behind high-level meetings between euro poll and the members of the competent and British authorities that take place regularly to discuss issues relating to title five of the agreement. And, finally, we get to the common understanding of May 19 with several paragraphs about Europol and it says that the two parties believe there is scope for better and deeper implementation of the TPA.

And I must say that that strikes home because I am not really sure how much has been achieved in over five years in the implementation. It says that that UK and the first commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that the pending arrangements in the UK are finalised swiftly and I would be most grateful if the novel of the Minister could tell me what those pending arrangements are. And I am not seeing his face.

I had the impression he was surprised, but that might admittedly be my vision. And I happened to be in a meeting with the Justice commission this morning and I did ask about this and an official mentioned that they will work further working arrangements under discussion. I do not think in any secret way, but included the liaison officers, so we have been talking about liaison officers for quite a long time without it actually landing, but very importantly in paragraph 52 which talk about that UK commission with the increased cooperation under the the increased cooperation under the applicable rules.

And I think one idea under that operation would be for UK involvements including migrant smuggling, so there being important pledges about cooperation, this still, for my taste, is a bit too much at the level of pledges rather than product. And so in a sense these amendments, these three amendments, our tour rather stimulate from the Minister a spelling out of what he sees as the possibilities particularly in this possibilities particularly in this bill, cooperation to stop, catch the gangs, the criminal gangs in people smuggling and migrant trafficking.

Where are we at and where are we going without too much today in terms of cooperation to UK law- terms of cooperation to UK law- enforcement agencies and Europol which provides specific suggestions and reporting on what is happening, itemising the actions and the operations of other subjects of the UK involvement. And then particularly on smuggling with the sufficient resources to enable our agencies to participate in projects. And operations. So, I think what I would really like to hear from the Minister is yes, they are brilliant, these amendments.

But if he could perhaps tell us where exactly are we at, in very concrete terms. I think that we are probably hearing quite enough about pledges, aspirations, I think little flesh on the bones

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would not come amiss. Amendment proposed after close 36 insert the new clause on the
15:08
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall list. If I could just rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I could just rise to speak to this in this group amendments I have got some points to make about some got some points to make about some questions for the Noble Lady may be able to take them when she speaks at the end. The first point on amendment 100 which is a requirement to reduce the annual report, I was not always in favour of these, it seems to be a load of democracy where we have to set up a team of people that spend time producing glossy documents and take up a lot of time and actually the danger is sort of understand why she said it, but the noble Baroness said because you have got to produce a report you have got to do some things in the report and I do not want the Home Office doing things to the report, I want them making sensible decisions about what our strategic policing choices are.

In doing those things nothings to set a report up and all of the stepping statute you have to do because they are not suggestions the honourable lady is making. This is about things in law that departments have to do as a priority over other things, so I am not overly keen on doing that, and also not entirely clear, this is not a request, I was not entirely clear why she has just been in Europol and the problem with that and Europol also deals with cybercrime but these are not just European problems, clearly we see that Europe is a key territory for us in terms of people trafficking, but it is not the only place.

We should remember that large though the small problem is, it is still the case that the majority of people seeking asylum are not coming in small boats but including those people that do not have a claim for asylum that are coming from countries around the world, so I think that having this skill just towards cooperating with Europol is unhelpful and I want Ministers and law-enforcement agencies to decide on which international agencies they are going to cover operate with based on the threat assessment to the United Kingdom, not based on statutory vision with one and not the other.

Specifically in amendment 101 is one that is particularly concerned in subsection 3 about the joint Taskforce Hirst, the amendment as a whole forces the Secretary of State, but in terms of the task. And it has a duty, it has to do with matters that the Secretary of State or the director of Europol and frankly I do not think it is right that the director of Europol gets to choose the way in which the Secretary of State is able to choose, even if the Secretary of State does not agree with the Secretary of State needing to focus on it.

And I want Ministers to remain accountable to Parliament and make the decisions that they think are relevant and justify them accordingly and this effectively director the ability to direct resources from the British Government and the British taxpayer which I do not think is appropriate. And, finally, just turning to the last of this group of Amendment 206, again the first part of that, this is about participation specifically for uploads and trafficking, I presume by that we mean it does not specifically say as you need human trafficking operations as opposed to drug-trafficking operations, but it forces the Secretary of State as it says must provide adequate resources to law-enforcement agencies to enhance their participation in Europol operations, that means operating there doing, does not mean savage state has discretion to make judgements about whether or not she thinks those antitrafficking operations are the ones that we should focus our efforts on and forces her to make available resources where she thinks that is appropriate or not and I do not think it is.

The final point is the territorial acceptance of this bill is the whole of the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I am not entirely certain why for the purposes of subsection 1 the law- enforcement agencies only include the National Crime Agency police forces in England and Wales. Over the years that have had some responsibility for it in the past do nothing know why it does not include police Scotland or Northern Ireland, if you look at the birth of Europe will operations it seems that the police service would absolutely be interested in counterterrorism cybercrime, drug-trafficking and human trafficking and particularly given Northern Ireland's position with the land bought with the part of the European Union seems to be extraordinary that this does not include the police service in Northern Ireland and I think that is an admission, once you start listing things in the face of the primary legislation my understanding of how it works is that by not including things you make it less possible for them to have powers than if you had no list at all, there is a danger with primary legislation, so I think that much as I understand the objective I think that is perfectly reasonable on the operation with other partners in other countries for what is transnational crime, I think that the focus on Europol and not other bodies that we could be part of, I think it skews our focus in a way that I think Ministers alternate judgements about, we do not have infinite resources, Ministers should have to choose whether threats are, what the priorities are on an operational basis, not the primary legislation, so I think that the fundamentals are misconceived, but also it is a problem if the fundamentals were not misconceived as drafted, so I hope that Noble Lady withdraws the issue if she comes back with the amendments crafted in a more focused way and the way they are set out at the moment they're not going to deliver the objectives like they would and I hope the Minister Canto transom of those points when they respond and she would be able to address them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to Echo the concerns of my Noble Friend Lord
15:15
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
concerns of my Noble Friend Lord Harper. First of all, I would pay tribute to the Noble Lady baroness Hartford. I mentioned serving with her on the European Affairs She has great expertise and knowledge on these issues from her experience in the European Parliament. She is our resident expert on these issues when we debate it in committee. What I would say is she will know that we have had two separate enquiries which have covered these issues over the last year or so.

One was on our policy, the EU's policy on data adequacy. Which is germane to the area of policing, crime and particularly serious organised crime. More recently the reset since 19 May we have been looking in forensic detail at government policies insofar as it's possible to do. One thing I would say very briefly is, the reason I have some concerns about these amendments and do reiterate the point of my noble friend is I take the view if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I do think the evidence we heard at committee from the National Crime Agency was that we were making organic incremental changes and things were improving from our exit from the European Union in 2021. A good example of that is, as she well example of that is, as she well knows, reddish police forces -- British police forces are able to take the lead in some big cases, particularly in cybercrime, people trafficking and modern slavery. Therefore, I think put an amendment on the face of the bill which effectively ties the hands of Ministers quite closely in terms of the strategic objectives they are aiming to deliver in this area.

We all want to work closely with our partners and friends in the European Union, and particularly around areas... The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip does laugh but he might try and listen to my remarks before being so presumptuous. We do want to work closely, and we have worked closely over the last few years. There is more work to do on data adequacy, on sharing data. There are still enduring problems about the view of the commission and the court of justice of the European Union, in terms of the legal purview they have and the oversight they wish to have in terms of joint operations.

But I do think these amendments are rather heavy-handed, if I may say so. And do circumscribe the flexibility of Ministers. Finally, I will say there is an opportunity for proper scrutiny and oversight of work of the NCA and others. The Home Affairs Committee in the other place, our committee and directly on the floor of this House and in the other place. For those reasons I echo my noble friend, and I would hope that although the lady does an excellent job helping us understand these issues from her unique experience, that they are unnecessary.

And I hope on this occasion she would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendments. Interestingly, the challenge in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interestingly, the challenge in this bill which is before us is to
15:19
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
smash the gangs. Because that was the statement from the noble Lord the Minister. And the issue which is predominantly in this bill, and the one which is about boat crossings across the English Channel, and of course it was the previous government who made this such a total issue, they floated above all else, even on the side of Lech turns in 10 Downing Street. If you want to treat this matter which is so important to this side of the house on my right, and the bill which has been explained to us, then quite clearly we would want to see how best we use our resources in order to be able to tackle these problems in common.

I explained earlier I was in Calais examining all these issues, and I was with the French police just after they had arrested a German motorcar with a blanket over the back seat. There were teddy bears on the top, underneath it was a dinghy of exactly the same sort I had seen on the beach which had been demonstrated to us as the type that was used. That dinghy had come in a car, I have a number plates, I have a photograph of a car that was arrested at the French border.

It had come from Germany, a German car. I was told by the officials quite clearly that these things come across Europe, and all of the machines and bits and pieces are collected and used by different countries. Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Turkiye, as well as France and the UK, all involved in this. So quite clearly it would be right in this bill to examine the level of cross cooperation in the forces who are to deal with it, of which Europol is of course the one for the rest of the continent.

Particularly of course the one reflecting that chain which I have just described. The scope of the relationship between ourselves and Europol is defined by the TCA. I have seen no amendments to that, and I'm hopeful as I know many members in this House are that we will see big changes to the TCA which basically hasn't given us our best result. In terms of the relationship with Europol, it's quite clear. And the scope of the cooperation is laid out clearly in article 567.

I won't read the words all out, but basically the exchange of information, reports, analysis, information on participation in training, and the provision of support. Nowhere does it say about joint cooperation and activities to deal with the issues before us. I know that has been some action because we have seen it reported, so it's the depth of that action which is the important aspect, with a body that has responsibility for policing these serious crimes across the parts of the European Union where this matter is arising.

There are some specifics, but my first question is what is the operational level of development between the British forces and Europol? Have we designated a national contact point? Which is what this agreement says. And how many liaison officers have we got? It says the United Kingdom shall ensure, and remember this was the previous government not this one, the previous government agreed that the United Kingdom will ensure its liaison officers have speedy and where possible technical access to the databases of the United Kingdom for them to do their tasks.

But the number of liaison officers, their details rights and obligations will be done by working arrangements, we need to know what they are. Basically what we need to know is whether we have got those liaison officers in place. So that's my second question, about the structural relationship. Have we got these liaison officers in place? And are they both Europol inside the UK, and UK inside Europol. Which is what this document, agreed by previous governments, lays out happen. So the third element is whether or not the scope of cooperation, which is in this document, is sufficient to tackle the problems that we are now facing across this chain of operations across Europe which ends up with us.

This is an important issue, because we are talking about this as a serious crime. And it's a serious crime which is being reflected across the parts of Europe as well as in the United Kingdom. So the relationship is important to us, because it has the operational ability, the people with the operational ability, but we need to know there is cooperation within that operational ability. And without understanding that we can't be reassured that this matter which is at the top of the issues that are facing the country, according to the Conservative party, to be tackled properly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I could begin by saying I knew this would only be a matter of time before debate turned to the of time before debate turned to the European Union. But I do rise to offer some support on this amendment, which seeks to introduce amendment, which seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement on cooperation between UK law cooperation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol. I do so not out of any dogmatic enthusiasm for greater institutional integration with the European Union, but because this amendment touches on something far more important.

Which is that the government should have a duty to come before have a duty to come before Parliament and the British people and show us the work they have been and show us the work they have been doing to smash the gangs. We have all of these questions already, how many gangs have been dismantled, how many people smugglers are been arrested, what impact has that had on the scale of the crossings? Once on the scale of the crossings? Once this bill comes into force the pressure on government to answer these questions will be even greater, so to that end we think a greater, so to that end we think a requirement to report these numbers should be set out in law.

Indeed, should be set out in law. Indeed, this amendment seeks -- speaks to Ali amendments tabled in our name when we called for greater transparency about enforcement outcomes. If the government is serious about stopping the boats, breaking the business model and restoring control it should welcome this and show Parliament the evidence. I do want to strike a note of caution here, while cooperation with Europol is undoubtedly important that cooperation must be driven by operational lead not ideological nostalgia. -- Operational need.

This can't be a back door to alignment for its own sake, what matters is whether the relationship delivers results, whether it helps our agencies do their job more effectively, and if it does let's support it. But if it doesn't, our resources might be better deployed elsewhere and we must retain Flex ability to make those choices. I support the principle behind the amendment, let us have the data, let us see the progress, let us ensure the decisions about operational cooperation are rooted in the fight serious crime and the broader desire to turn back the -- not the broader desire to turn back the clock on Brexit.

The same principle of operational demand underpins our opposition to amendment 101, we have spoken a lot about giving our law- enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, but we can't tie their hands. It respected the noble Lady, I believe our authorities can be trusted to determine whether a joint task. It's necessary, I do not think compelling them to do so in law is a sensible thing to do. Our concerns are much the same with amendment to 06. While I'm sure this amendment is well- intentioned, I rise to speak against it.

Because however worthy its stated aim, it rests on a Lord Prentis. But this chamber and indeed the members of it should -- we must ensure our law-enforcement agencies adequately resourced. What I find more difficult to accept the idea we should now begin legislating where those resources must go. As if we are better placed than professionals themselves to determine strategic priorities. Operational partnerships or the most effective deployment of personnel and technology. Respectfully I must ask what
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
bear with me. I spent probably a lot of the period between 2016 and 2019 as a member of Parliament arguing for a close relationship Europol with where we agreed the Brexit referendum. I put a lot of pressure on there then Prime Minister and Home Secretary is to make sure that they valued Europol and its close cooperation work. And I was disappointed in the outcome of the settlements that were achieved in terms of that relationship. So, I start from the basis that the points of the noble Baroness has made are important.

And I think that the approach of the current Government since 2024 has been to ensure that we do encourage and engage in cooperation Europol with and other agencies to achieve the objectives that we have set. The Noble Lord has asked me, essentially, the proof of the pudding, I paraphrase, that's what they were seeing, although the Include a major Syrian organised gang responsible for smuggling at least 704 and three migrants into the UK and the rest of the Turkish national suspected of being a supplier small boats, German law- enforcement operations resulting in 13 arrests across Germany and France, the arrest of six men wanted in Belgium for their suspected involvement in a major people smuggling ring.

Increased disruptions in these last 12 months disruptions in these last 12 months of high end ham targets by nearly 25%, twice as many social media accounts with 18,000 social media accounts with smugglers to generate activity, increasing the cost of gangs and focus and energy packages for those involved bite northern France, undertaking the seizure of 24 engines and 86 boats by the NCA in the period July to May, 2024, and continued action by the new Border Force commander who will use legislative backup under this bill to achieve the objectives that I think that they both share which is to reduce pressure on the gangs and that has been done by cooperation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with others amongst others Europol. That is extremely impressive and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is extremely impressive and I thank the Minister for that. Can he explain why over 21,000 people are arriving in the UK in boats?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are arriving in the UK in boats? You know is this is a complex challenge and he knows that there challenge and he knows that there are a range of measures that the Government is trying to undertake to do that and he will know that with do that and he will know that with the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme we have been able to look at the process with more applications and process with more applications and remove people from hotels and we remove people from hotels and we have been able to undertake greater investment in the sort of cooperation that the Border Force commander is going to undertake commander is going to undertake shortly and I believe that there will be continued pressure on that issue, but he knows that is a difficult challenge, I am not difficult challenge, I am not denying that, but we have a duty to disrupt and that disruption involves close cooperation Europol with.

I close cooperation Europol with. I get the sense that I mean this in the nicest possible way, probing the nicest possible way, probing amendments as to the issues around Europol and all around pressing the Europol and all around pressing the Government as to where we are with that. And another Lord Harper and Jackson have put some challenge into the drafting objectives of those clauses but I will address it in the sense that it is a probing amendment and the noble Baroness is looking to look at determining what we are doing with them.

It is a challenge that I accept and will respond to. The Border Security Commander whose legal framework is in the early clauses of this bill will work with a range of international bodies to deliver the government's policy objectives, recognising that the international solution is certainly required in order to set an international cross-border set of challenges that are in place currently. And the recent crimes are brought together over four team thousand countries including Euro alternate Unite people smuggling gangs and to deliver on the people's priorities for a more secure border.

And the amendments that were pressing on that, there is the argument for an annual report that I would say that the Border Force commanders themselves have to provide an annual report and his work is very closely linked to that and we have a very strong relationship currently with them. We have a significant permanent presence in the agencies in The Hague, the Home Office will continue to work with Europol to deliver the bodice objectives and the Border Security Commander has a key role Europol in being one of the agencies through which our objectives are being set and, in fact, going to the direct question of the Noble Lord German, in terms of joint working week have currently 20 officers embedded as liaison officers in Euro poll headquarters and teams across the community.

And I think that it would be challenging and perhaps inappropriate to set statutory requirements that would seek to establish joint task. And when these are operational decisions, but in having an operational decision those operational decisions have the full support of Government to work closely with them to do the things that they do which is to help with data, common investigations, and to ensure that we work with partnership because that is a really vital thing for us to do, given that many of those criminal gangs are operating in what is Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, and the European Community.

And that is why, again, the Border Force commander, as well as working closely with them has established and worked with what we call the Calais Group which is member states in French, Belgium, and Holland, and the United Kingdom, looking at close cooperation on those areas and we want to ensure and we are ensuring that we have accurate resources to law-enforcement agencies to enhance that participation in their antitrafficking operations, regular interaction with them, and the commander that we have on this bill is already providing strategic cross system leadership across current and future threats UK Border Security Command protecting the UK border, and going after the people smuggling gangs, and we believe that the legislation strikes operational balance but also ensures that law enforcement and the UK intelligence community are supportive of the approach of the commander and by establishing a Kia directional leadership we are getting the system to boost the activity of them as a whole.

There is a very strong operational relationship with them led by the National Crime Agency, the director-general of the National Crime Agency regularly meets with his counterparts to discuss relevant matters and the commander himself has engaged heavily with law- enforcement and we have doubled our presence there and hosted the General Assembly and increase the number of embeds from the National Crime Agency in European organisations such as Europol and I think that on an operational and strategic level it is in both there and the European Community centre, and the European interest to help that close cooperation.

And that is why, again, the post-Brexit referendum and arguing for that relationship because it was important and as they said it once was the Europol leader of in the European Community, so I hope that there is not a sliver of difference between us, but that the amendments themselves deliver and going back to what another Lord Harper has said which is the annual report that is the, the demand cooperation with us determining a third-party task force to be cooperated with and also it demands areas of resource that we are dealing with without that necessarily operational attack on the operational dependence that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

may approach. I give way to the Noble Lord. Thank you very much so far for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much so far for the expedition you have given which the expedition you have given which I think dictates a level of progress that has been surprising people where we started from back in this agreement and proceeded it to make it happen. You have been very kind it happen. You have been very kind until it was that you have officers embedded in The Hague. Does have similar offices Europol embedded within the United Kingdom? That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the question. Again, I think it is probably best if I reflect on that because I best if I reflect on that because I know who is embedded Europol in but what I do not know offhand, unless I can find some inspiration in the can find some inspiration in the next few seconds which I fear that I next few seconds which I fear that I may have to check, and I say that simply because this minister, this simply because this minister, this Government, is responsible for the Government, is responsible for the National Crime Agency.

And the liaison. It is not necessarily responsible for Europol the aspect of it ourselves, so rather than to give the Noble Lord and answer which is unhelpful, if he would allow me I would reflect on that in due course and return to that and give him a specific answer in light of this very helpful set of amendments which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I still hope to withdraw. My Lords, I think the Noble Lord
15:41
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think the Noble Lord the Minister for that response. I the Minister for that response. I mean the tone and the approach, very much in the direction and the spirit of the amendments, even if the drafting of the amendments are not entirely fit to the Minister's mind. And he is right that they designed a sense to illustrate the very welcome change of approach of the current Government which does regard cooperation with Europol and indeed, with the EU, as important.

And I did note that the Noble Lord Davies said we must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. I do not think that you could find in the drafting of these amendments anything that is not operational. To be honest, a tick slight exception to any suggestion that they are driven by ideological the stodgy. I think if there is any ideology it is coming from the opposition benches who are still displaying their allergy to the European Union which is one of the reasons why and the Noble Lord Jackson would do well to serve under European Affairs Committee and we are going to have some interesting discussions when we finalise our report on the research, he referred to when we had senior leads from the National Crime Agency and the national police Council that spoke to us if you months ago and give evidence to us and they referred to the more cumbersome, I looked it up while you were speaking, the more cumbersome clunky and process heavy post Brexit arrangements, what they were engaged in was mitigation, so they are making the best and I use words they did not use but often not great jobs.

And I am afraid what is coming from the benches to my right is a prejudice to work with the European

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Union. I am listening very carefully to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am listening very carefully to the Noble Lady. She knows that there has been cross-party support, for instance, in information sharing in instance, in information sharing in respect of the information system second integration which we were second integration which we were second integration which we were members of in 2015 and it is incumbent on this Government to negotiate that information sharing and also the European Union. We could ameliorate the crankiness by could ameliorate the crankiness by the EU to be a bit flexible for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mutual benefit of sharing the data. Kinds of things we can aspire to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kinds of things we can aspire to. Unfortunately, the arrangements that the noble Lords party negotiated the noble Lords party negotiated have some constraints in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have some constraints in terms of the legal operation of the European Union and he knows that. Sorry to disturb the noble Ladies flow, but I just wanted to place on record in answer to the question record in answer to the question that was raised members and the that was raised members and the benches that there are no Europol members in the UK. There is a liaison unit that is staffed entirely by police officers. I hope that is helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lords for that helpful information. Just, forgive helpful information. Just, forgive me, I just wanted to be clear because I think that you may have sure inadvertently misunderstood me, sure inadvertently misunderstood me, so I very supportive of us collaborating Europol with we did collaborating Europol with we did when I was a minister and we do now and I want us to continue but what I also want us to do is continue with operating agencies around the bottom operating agencies around the bottom but I do not want to do is feta either agencies or the Government skewing priorities towards only one skewing priorities towards only one of them.

I actually want to cooperate with all agencies and make those decisions based on the threat those decisions based on the threat assessment and the operational need. I will do all of those, but I am I will do all of those, but I am very supportive of the operation of Euro poll and always have been. I do Euro poll and always have been. I do not want to run away with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not want to run away with the I was coming to Lord Parker's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was coming to Lord Parker's remarks, he said we don't want to just cooperate with Europe we want just cooperate with Europe we want global cooperation. Of course I want global cooperation, but the fact is that something like Interpol is not operational. Europol is operational, and it's our next door neighbour. And it's obvious because of the route that irregular migrants make that geography means we have to cooperate particularly with our European counterparts on issues like people smuggling and migrant trafficking.

That doesn't mean we don't want to cooperate elsewhere, particularly with countries of origin, but we don't have the same operational possibilities as we do with EU institutions and agencies. Anyway, what I think I was talking about was reminding the noble Lord Jackson of the evidence we heard from senior police officers. They had to be diplomatic, and they are doing their best with the hand they have been dealt. But it is not ideological nostalgia to say that the TCA provides serious limitations on those possibilities.

And one wouldn't wish to frankly start from there. So I hugely welcome the change of tone and approach, and the change of tone and approach, and the willingness not this baggage with anything with the word Europe in it. I know the noble Lord the Minister personally and the government wants to, within limitations which I don't necessarily endorse, but to cooperate with the European Union and individual member states. And it's not about politics or ideology, it's about whether we are going to catch major criminals.

That is why we have to give our police and European police the tools to be able to disrupt the gangs that we all want to do. That's why we mustn't allow ideology to affect that cooperation. I am grateful for the reply from the noble Lord the reply from the noble Lord the Minister, I will reflect on whether we can submit something out report stage which is more to the government's taste. But I welcome the positivity that is coming from his remarks and his intentions about how we need cooperation.

So with that, I'm going to beggarly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn.
15:49
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 101, not moved. We now come to 102, Lord Swire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to 102, Lord Swire. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, namely 102 and standing in my name, namely 102 and 149. I very much hope that these amendments are in the spirit of what we are discussing this afternoon, and indeed in the spirit of what the and indeed in the spirit of what the government is attempting to do and I praise the earlier debates on the UK government resilience action plan, I was in the chamber when Baroness Anderson was on the front bench for that.

And the governments other document on the national security strategy of 2025, in which it states amongst many other things paragraph 14, we will expand our legal and law enforcement toolkit to ensure the UK becomes a harder target for a hostile state and nonstate actors hostile state and nonstate actors including criminal gangs engaged in illegal migration. We will roll out a series of new measures to strengthen our borders, defend our territory and enhance the resilience of our critical national infrastructure.

Et cetera, et cetera. And further, there are other parts I can see in this document but they all pretty much say the same thing, security at home, defend our territory, make the UK a harder target, the first pillar of our strategic framework is to protect our people, bolster the security of our homeland, and strengthen our borders against all types of threats. Both in the physical and online spaces. Then in paragraph 3, these multiple and interconnected threats require us to make ourselves a harder target to adversaries as a first step our borders and territorial waters must be strengthened.

We hear all that, then we come to the clauses in question. 102 first, I find the drafting rather tentative in 102. What my amendments seek to do is put up a bit of muscle behind the government's intention. First, under my amendment they change may must in subsection 1, which would require officers to take fingerprints from all people to whom that applies. A person who does not present a passport at a port of entry, a person who has been refused leave to enter the UK and granted immigration bail, anyone who has been granted a deportation order amongst others.

Currently that only says may, meaning as the legislation is proposed there is no requirement for immigration officers to collect this biometric information. My amendment makes it a duty to do so. Secondly, the amendment adds a new person to whom section 141 applies, it creates Z a, this is any person who wishes to enter the UK, any arrivals whatsoever. Subsection 2 of this amendment amends the immigration collection and use of biometric regulations 2021 to require immigration officers to take photographs of each and every arrival into the UK.

This is all about ensuring we know who is entering the country, and that we have an accurate record of each and every person who crosses our border. If that person then commits a crime whilst in the UK the police would have their fingerprints and photograph on record, to enable them to investigate and prosecute. And I cannot see why the government would be opposed to this. Given everything they have said so far today. Amendment 149, the second amendment in my name, amends the immigration act 1971 to insert two new sections.

The new section 281A, creating new powers to seize foreign addiction to the -- identity documents from those awaiting deportation and those granted immigration bail. Immigration officers will be able to search, seize and retain all such documents, and there are penalties within the suggested amendment on what would happen to those who do not comply or misrepresent themselves. 281B says that officers a new -- issue a new biometric identity card, linked to the biometric information they supplied as laid out in amendment 102.

Nothing very contentious there, nothing very Draconian. Just an attempt to garner the information we need to standardise that information and to have a better idea of who is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in this country at anyone time. I wish to move my amendment. Amendment proposed, articles 36
15:55
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, articles 36 insert the new clause as to biometric information as printed on a marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire. I begin with a confession. Indeed, I think it's a confession shared with my colleagues on these benches. We all, I think, were whipped into thousand and six or 2007 in the other place when in opposition to oppose identity cards. It was at the time a period where there was very serious concerns about the infringement on civil liberties of identity cards.

Tony Blair, our former prime minister, got a lot of things wrong over the years. But he was absolutely right on identity cards. And I think that where I too have that vote again, where I to go back in time, I would have supported identity cards. For have supported identity cards. For very many reasons. We are talking almost 20 years ago, the world has changed significantly in terms of transnational travel, patterns of crime, serious organised crime, the challenges of very large numbers of people moving across the world, a minority of whom are doing so for nefarious reasons.

And for criminal enterprises. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on any government which is committed, the noble Lord the Minister knows I have great respect for him and I know he serves in the greatest tradition of Patriots who have served in government in the Labour Party, he wants to do his best to protect our borders and protect the safety and security of our country. But I don't think we can any longer have these slightly erudite debates about ID cards and civil liberties when we have so many huge challenges, particularly the threat of Islamist terrorism and other serious organised crime.

So if we look abroad we see that other countries have taken this very seriously as well, many English- speaking countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and of course the United States. But what bedevils us is lack of data, or coordination and collaboration in terms of sharing data. I have been nice about the Minister, now I'm going to be nasty. In that I've asked him think four times the same question, it's not his fault, it's his officials there I say, about one in issue for instance which is do we collect data on students whose visas are rescinded as a result of criminal activity.

And he has had to answer for various reasons that he can't give me that information. It's that the Home Office doesn't collate that data, there were too many databases, it would be too expensive to collect that data. I think I have now asked him five times for that. I'm not blaming him as such, but that is symptomatic of the difficulty of being able to coordinate data properly in the public interest to fight crime. Therefore, anything that can assist that, whether it's facial recognition and I know there are civil issues and what we see in China are some major infringements of civil liberties, I do not want to go down that road.

But facial recognition, iris scans, fingerprints et cetera. And I do think the ability to collect that data for the people coming in...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my noble friend Lord German is going to speak on this. German is going to speak on this. Just before, I didn't want to lose the theme of ID cards. I have a question because I genuinely don't question because I genuinely don't understand how ID cards, we can have understand how ID cards, we can have a big long debate, we have in the past and maybe we can in the future about ID cards, but how are they supposed to help in the case of supposed to help in the case of regular migration? Employers who are regular migration? Employers who are employing people irregularly, illegally, and presumably -- are presumably meant to be checking documents that people have the right documents that people have the right to stay and work.

Are they really? How does an ID card help? They have How does an ID card help? They have the means to check whether someone has the right to work legally, which has the right to work legally, which is an alleged pole factor that the immigration advisory committee has immigration advisory committee has always advised but it is naturally true. The noble Lord explain to me what do ID cards add as a supposed deterrence to irregular migrants, when employers should already be checking documentation.

How does it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If there are appropriate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If there are appropriate safeguards, and I emphasise if, if there is proper scrutiny and oversight of the issue of those ID cards than I do believe that allows cards than I do believe that allows a number of key agencies such as the NHS, such as local authorities, Adult Social Care Committee services, and police forces, National Crime Agency, and others, National Crime Agency, and others, to be in a position to track those individuals who are identified as obviously predisposed to commit obviously predisposed to commit crime and often serious.

And I do think that in that respect if you talk to most people I absolutely respect the liberal position and the Liberal Democrat position that they Liberal Democrat position that they believe in and individualist freedom believe in and individualist freedom not to be trapped by the state, and we know that there are occasions across the world where that sort of across the world where that sort of surveillance is for punish as an surveillance is for punish as an irregular and immoral reasons, but that is not our country, we have a that is not our country, we have a parliamentary democracy, we do have checks and balances to ensure that would not be abused.

And, indeed, if one looks at the Information Commissioner we have wide-ranging powers, so I think I have crossed the Rubicon on the principal of the ID cards, but this is not a balloon debate on ID cards, so I must press on, so I do think my own party has been complicit in some of these significant difficulties. I think that we made a big mistake in ending exit controls. I cannot remember where it was, I think it was in the early 1990s in the major Government I think there was a significant mistake that we made.

But, actually, we can learn from our friends in the European Union. They do have European information systems that is coming on stream. They do have EES, the entry and exit system because they understand the importance of collecting data in order to facilitate fighting crime, so I do think that we need to focus on collecting data and using that data effectively to turn up the dots on crime-fighting and to make sure we know who is in the country and who is coming in and who will be leaving the country which is what my Noble Friends amendments would do.

To put it on statutory footing, that obligation in order to track those individuals I think would be a start of the imperative of departments, particularly the Home Office, to start joining the dots in terms of the data that they hold in order to work properly to protect people, and I just have to mention it but only I think two days ago Mr Thomas Simmons who was based on LBC was completely stumped by the presenter that said what questions do they ask people who are saying they are applying for asylum when they come ashore near Dover.

He was not able to answer any of the questions and the presenter said do they ask the individual who trafficked you what nationality were they? Where did you actually come from? And maybe the Minister will answer this, I am not sure in terms of collecting this, that is not even when we are talking about IT databases, so I think that my Noble Friends amendment is excellent for these amendments, I think that would in the process really taking seriously the challenges that we face in protecting our order.

We are following the lead of many countries across the world that similarly take these threats to national security and safety seriously and I do think that the Minister who has generally been in the right place, I read the debate around the statutory with my Noble Friend in March on biometrics, he is saying the right things and I he is saying the right things and I think he would give us a lot of sustenance in that campaign to make our country safer, were he to be mindful support by my Noble Friends excellent to amendments.
16:05
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support my Noble Friend to amendments, I think well-intentioned and well drafted and I think they have the right approach. I think that strengthening the ability of state agencies is very helpful. At this point, though, I am afraid I am going to part company with my Noble Friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I will not allow him to tempt me at length on this but I think there are a couple of ways that I hope they do not find but I will agree with that Noble Lady on this point.

She asked the right question which is how does having ID cards help solve any of these problems, and I think she is right. We already require this introduction and highlighting the fact that we already require people who come to this country as migrants to have the identity documents in their biometric information that we require those that employ them, for example, to check their status and there is a gap in that that the Minister would come in to deal with that later on clause 45, the Government is rightly looking to strengthen that, not just the traditional employment models but also some of the new employment models that are currently captured that have been highlighted publicly, including by the Shadow Secretary on problems with things like the gig economy and things that do not come captured, so that is important, but we already require being able to check that information.

Those employers that operate illegally do not choose, are still not going to do it, my worry about ID cards and it seems to be what you do is you put the burden on the rest of us but hopefully you should not but already all the services, the NHS, except for emergency care, rightly, the DWP, all of these agencies require the evidence that you have a right to be in the country and access those services and rightly do not insist that the NHS does it for emergency care but we do if you go to a hospital to plan the treatment they will check that you are entitled to have that free NHS care, or they are supposed to.

They may not always do so, but they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legally supposed to do so, and of course I will give way to him. I am grateful to my Noble Friend, but I have to ask him the fundamental question, if the fundamental question, if the biometric data that we currently retain across all the agencies of Government, if that system is working, why is it that the Government and indeed the previous Government and indeed the previous Government that we supported, has no Government that we supported, has no idea how many illegal immigrants are now in the country, has no idea, for instance, as to the veracity of the instance, as to the veracity of the estimate one in 10 people in Greater London, 9 million people are illegal immigrants, we simply do not know immigrants, we simply do not know the number, so it may not be that ID cards are perfect, but they may go cards are perfect, but they may go some way to enable us to have a quantitative and qualitative quantitative and qualitative analysis of the challenge facing us in the delivery of public services which, at the moment, we are flying blind and cannot use the data and blind and cannot use the data and the Government does not how many people are in the country.

This is the bit that I was coming onto, this the bit that I was coming onto, this is where I do agree, there's a big difference between having ID cards difference between having ID cards that put the burden on the rest of us which I do not think what us which I do not think what actually affect how we deliver the services and protect ourselves but actually the point about data and having the estate be better and using data I think he makes a very good point and one of the points I used to always be very sceptical about the state using data we have seen how the private sector uses them effectively to deliver better services and having had some responsibility in the past for some of our agencies or use their services, people sometimes get concerned about that when they have the Big Brother conversation and one of the agencies, the powers are under legal footing investigation, there are very clear controls for there are very clear controls for Parliament to make decisions & warrants for communications and there were very clear rules about how that worked and all of that is overseen by a judicial Chair to make sure that the law is being enforced properly, so I think that there are appropriate safeguards and I do think that we could do a better job and actually the private sector in collecting and using data does a much better job of this and this is true across Government and I think actually not just the Home Office but also the NHS and other organisations use the data, so I do distinguish between collecting and using data to deliver services but I do not think it follows that we would require people to carry the documents list.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to adjudicate to my honourable friend Lord Jackson and I do think that in fact Lord Harper do think that in fact Lord Harper has a point, you can do something has a point, you can do something short on that scale of data collection and identity card system collection and identity card system and the problem is the cost and it and the problem is the cost and it was a problem at the time, the cost. was a problem at the time, the cost.

I think it was £3 billion all those years ago during the Blair years ago during the Blair Government. And the cost today, God knows what the Chancellor of the knows what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say if suddenly presented with this, and I do agree presented with this, and I do agree with my Noble Friend that we do need with my Noble Friend that we do need data protection in this area and more data particularly in this area were absolutely we simply do not know what is coming on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my Noble Friend for this attempt to adjudicate between myself attempt to adjudicate between myself and my Noble Friend Lord Jackson and he makes a good point and I think getting much better to use data to make both policy decisions and this is a notice of the current Government as well, but also to make operational decisions and to deal with the threat and also to be nimble enough to recognise that these threats can remain static but they change and the state has to be much better at altering the focus to deal with the threats, so I think on those points I will try not to do so but I strongly support the amendments and I hope they will get a fair hearing from the Government and even if the Government does not like the way that they are drafted or whatever we take away I think my Honourable Friends amendments and they're making a good point we can see this operated into the bill in see this operated into the bill in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am thankful to my Noble Friend for tabling these amendments for tabling these amendments relating to the provision for biometric information by those seeking entry into the United seeking entry into the United Kingdom and also to my Noble Friend Lord Harper and Lord Jackson for that interesting deal. Which
16:13
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
that interesting deal. Which contributed greatly to this debate. Amendments one or two extents the powers under section 1 of 41 of the Immigration Act 1999 by mandating the collection of biometric information to those awaiting deportation. Those that have arrested for an immigration offence and asylum seekers, currently the ability to collect is optional, therefore we cannot be certain that immigration officers are collecting enough information to enable sufficient protection of our borders. This amendment goes further and requires the fingerprinting of everyone that seeks to enter the country that is not a British citizen.

And my Noble Friend has raised this issue are numerous occasions and was right to do so. If we do not know who has entered our country and indeed who is already here then we cannot take adequate measures to prosecute crimes and deport those with no right to be here. Importantly, my Noble Friend is proposing that we use biometric information in cases where the person in question has failed to provide us with any form of identification which would show who they were, where they came from, and why they wish to enter the UK.

These are not needlessly intrusive questions. The noble Lords who are lucky enough to travel abroad this summer will be asked exactly those questions, and rightly so. Every nation has to understand who was coming in and, as I have mentioned before, the consequences of not knowing can be dire. Might I remind the Lords of the Iranians her attack on a factory only just intersected by those that arrived without paperwork the small boats and in the back of lorries. And it is a matter of national security that we know who is entering the UK and overall by the Noble Lord has proposed a sensible amendment to the bill that would give law enforcement agencies the information that they need to begin to build up this picture.

Amendment 149 is also built on this principle and seems to allow immigration officers to search for, seize, retain, make use of identity documents of non-British nationals to issue biometric cards are in place. This amendment, once again, speaks to the fundamental border security that we must know who is trying to enter the UK, whether they are from, and the amendment has clear provision for returning all documents and is a sensible proposal designed to ensure that our designed to ensure that our immigration officers have as much information as possible when making the decisions necessary to secure our borders and this is to equip officers with the power that they need to she quiet the information that they need and as a safeguard against that risk that those might camp with the documents and the This is not an academic concern, the Crown Prosecution Service said the destruction of documents enables documents establishing where a person came from in order to increase the success of a claim or application or to thwart removal.

These offences have the real potential to undermine the whole system of immigration control. This amendment directly seeks to reduce that risk and keeps these important channels save, and ensures threats to our border are addressed and combated.
16:16
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for Lord Swire tabling these amendments, if only because we've been able to revisit matters over the last 17 years. On the benefits, or otherwise, of ID cards. I have the delete as appropriate misfortune to be in the Home Office in 2009 when we had the ID card rollout, I think I had number three of the ID cards at the time. Lots of biometric information taken from the at that time. In fact I remembered travelling to Austria on my ID card instead of having a passport, such was the veracity of the pleasure of having that ID card.

I know Lord Swire has revisited his vote in the Commons, I'm pleased to see the noble Lord Jackson is also suggested as such. But I think that debate is for another day. It's not one we can revisit today, it's not really featuring in any of the amendments we have before us today. Whilst it provides an interesting historical perspective on the rights or not of having ID cards, the amendment before us today from Lord Swire raises issues around biometric information.

And if I may, I will focus on that. Of course I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I enjoy having this exchange with the noble Lord the Minister on that particular vote. I've been trying to find out if there was any chance I find out if there was any chance I wasn't around during that vote, because I was a Minister in Northern Ireland at the time, I rather hope I was stuck over there. Unfortunately because of a lack of data collection there seems to be no way of finding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there seems to be no way of finding out my presence at that time. Can I help the noble Lord, let me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I help the noble Lord, let me say to him that if he was in the building he would have been voting that way. Or he wouldn't have been a that way. Or he wouldn't have been a Northern Ireland Minister for very much longer. I think it's immaterial as to whether he was in the building as to whether he was in the building or not. The government he supported or not. The government he supported voted to abolish ID cards. But let me put that to one side, that's a me put that to one side, that's a debate for another day.

Clause 102 debate for another day. Clause 102 which is intended to require all foreign nationals to provide biometric information on arrival to biometric information on arrival to the UK or face arrest if they fail to do so, I have no problems with biometric information. I have no problems in securing our boulders or protecting the public, I have no problems with the fact that it's already a cornerstone of our immigration system as it enables us to identify foreign nationals coming in and out of the UK, and staying in the UK.

Individuals who seek to enter the UK are required to provide biometric information as a requirement for entry clearance, or indeed an electronic travel authorisation that allows us to do the work the noble Lord wants us to do, to verify identity and assess suitability before arrival. We already compare fingerprints against law enforcement databases, this enables us to identify those who pose a threat coming to the UK. Requiring biometric sticky presented before a person travels to the UK also reduces the need for border forces to deal with people who pose a threat on arrival.

Where a person arrives in the UK without the necessary entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, we already have existing powers to capture their biometric information. And we can use reasonable force where necessary to do so. We already checked biometrics at the UK border is using E gates, to match facial image to image on the passport. For these are holders we check their fingerprints at the primary control desks. Let me remind the House that the government remains vigilant in its duty to protect our borders.

As recently as March 25 we introduced new legislation which significantly enhanced our ability to collect such biometric information at the border. Where this clause is to be enacted, and I know the noble Lord has good intentions in this, but where it is to be enacted it would mean all foreigners need to provide biometric information including people who were normally excused, such as those physically unable to enrol with biometrics or exempted such as sovereigns or the heads of state, which is neither practical nor proportional.

Also, more importantly for me this is a real key issue and as a former Northern Ireland Minister which I am and he is, he will know the Belfast Good Friday Agreement that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It was part of the common travel area arrangements, the UK does not operate routine travel controls in the area with no immigration checks being undertaken. This means however, if we take his amendment, that we will be unable to implement a policy of taking everyone's biometric information as they enter Northern Ireland from Ireland without introducing a hard border.

I think he doesn't want that, but the new clause would essentially mean that would be the case. If I turn to clause 149 about seizing identity documents...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the Minister -- if the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the Minister -- if the Minister thinks that my noble friend's amendment has some merit, friend's amendment has some merit, one of the ways of dealing with that as the UK implements its yes checks is to exchange information with the Irish Republic. So as people come Irish Republic. So as people come into the travel area we can collect into the travel area we can collect that biometric information. We were talking about sharing information without European partners, that's one way of doing it which doesn't one way of doing it which doesn't require a hard border on the island of Ireland, but actually hardens the border around a common travel area

**** Possible New Speaker ****

border around a common travel area which I think would be welcome. I thought I was moving to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought I was moving to the view that I didn't think the noble Lord's amendment has merit, but Lord's amendment has merit, but that's the nature of politics as the noble Lord nose. If I may return, having put that large bucket of cold water on the noble Lord's amendment water on the noble Lord's amendment 102, let me return to the question of 149 and seizing identity of 149 and seizing identity documents. If I may, I would like to reassure noble Lords that immigration officers already have powers to seize, retain, identity documents and require them to be produced with schedule two of the immigration act 1971, immigration officers have a power to require persons on immigration to produce identity or other relevant documents.

Which then may be retained until the person is given permission to enter the UK. It allows immigration officers to take all steps and powers to seize documents relating to identity, schedule three allows detention for the purposes of deportation. Furthermore there is a power in the asylum and immigration treatment of claimant act 2004 where the relevant documents may be retained where they may facilitate the removal of a person who may be liable for removal. So I think the 149 clause is covered by existing legislation.

As to the third clause the noble Lord proposed, the issuance of biometric documents to individuals whose identity documents have been seized, again I must gently express some reservations. We already issue foreign nationals with status in the UK with biometric immigration documents in the form of an EVs. Physical documents, they cannot be lost or tampered with, we also issue asylum seekers with application registration cards and evidence they have submitted a claim. We do not issue biometric documents that confirm the holders status to people who have no lawful UK immigration status, or an outstanding claim in the UK, and we do not provide documentation that could be used for identification purposes to avoid creating the impression that someone is in the UK lawfully.

Since November 24 we have stopped issuing physical biometric cards to foreign nationals granted status in the UK. Having to issue physical biometric cards to people whose documents were seized would generate additional costs, and without adding them up they would be several million pounds worth of additional costs. I think also it's important that House because that the misuse of identity documents is a criminal offence under the identity documents act of 2010. And the supply of equip meant for the creation of false documents is similarly proscribed under this specialist renting equipment and materials act of 2015.

So I hope that explanation helps the noble Lord. If he wishes to return to this at report, but I would hope he would withdraw the amendments having heard my defence of the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position. I am most grateful to the Minister. I do not agree with his Minister. I do not agree with his position. I think this would have provided him with an opportunity to provided him with an opportunity to send a very strong signal out to all those watching these debates and following the issue of immigration very closely. I also think there was a lot in what he said about officials having the power, and it officials having the power, and it was all tentative, they could do this and they could do that.

My amendments sought to ensure that they did these things, that's the they did these things, that's the only way we can get a degree of certainty. I hope we can return to this in the future. I strongly this in the future. I strongly suspect the government's position on this will have to change, but in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime I withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 37 stand part of the
16:27
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
bill. Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to oppose the question that clause 37 stands part of the that clause 37 stands part of the bill. The government's proposal of the Rwanda act goes to the heart the Rwanda act goes to the heart about differences on this debate. The previous government introduced a substantive deterrent, people identified as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers would have to be asylum seekers would have to be relocated to Rwanda for processing, asylum and resettlement. Those who were successful in claiming asylum were successful in claiming asylum would have remained in Rwanda and they would have been permitted to they would have been permitted to return -- would not have been permitted to return to the UK.

The government are in this clause tearing up that plan, they are proposing to introduce a new border commander with no actual command and commander with no actual command and no required relevant experience. They are proposing a handful of laws They are proposing a handful of laws which seek to criminalise supply chains which are almost entirely chains which are almost entirely located abroad. We have sought to be helpful to the government with many of our amendments, but this is a matter on which we unfortunately matter on which we unfortunately matter on which we unfortunately just disagree.

On this side we do recognise some fundamental truths the government seem intent on ignoring. The first is the supply in this matter is driven by demand. The second is that supply will always try and meet demand, even under absolute prohibition. I refer to my second reading speech to the 18th Amendment of the United States, which was quite a bit stronger than anything the government is proposing in this bill which yet still failed. The third and final is that if you want to stop supply you need to stop demand.

The government's approach is obsessed with supply, supply boats and ID documents. There's almost nothing here to affect demand. The simple fact of the matter is this, that while there are thousands of people willing to pay massive sums of money to come to the UK illegally there will be criminal gangs ready to take the money and get them here. The same can be said for pretty much any other criminal enterprise, the fact that these things are illegal by definition does not matter to the criminals who sustained them.

The previous government recognised this fact and decided to go after the demand by ensuring that those who sought to come to the UK illegally would spend as little time here as possible. Illegal's making third channel crossing last year were quoted many times are saying they were waiting for the Rwanda scheme to be abolished. Migrants in Calais said they were waiting for Labour to get in government because they knew the party would scrap the Rwanda policy. I put it strongly to your Lordships that this is clear evidence the Rwanda plan was acting as a deterrent.

Before the noble Lord the Minister gets up to tell us about the cost benefit ratio, might I remind him a deterrent is not designed to be regularly used, our nuclear deterrent for instance we have thankfully never used. We cannot measure the Rwanda plan on the number of people deported, we need to judge it on the number of migrants who never travelled in the first place. Furthermore, the government have repeatedly named that the Rwanda policy was pointless. The noble Lord the Minister said on 1 July it was costly, ineffective and did not And the problem with this statement and with all the Rwanda scheme is it could not be frozen because it was never allowed to begin and the Safety of Rwanda Act on 25 April 2024, the election was called one month later and the Government came in and cancelled it.

So, the Government entered office with clear deterrence. Since then, they have struck the plant and tried to replace it with a wholly inadequate alternative, the result of which we are discussing today. And look at the results, the Home Office data shows a further 2599 migrants made it to Britain in the week of July 5. That includes 879 people across on June 30 alone, the highest daily figure so far this year. And I know that minister will want to draw attention to this issue, but before he does may I remind him that nearly 4 times as many small boat migrants 4 times as many small boat migrants made it to Britain in one week and the French managed to stop them.

The numbers on a wider scale are simply of. 48% higher than the figure for the first six months of 2024 48% higher than the figure for the first six months of 20 2475% higher than 2023 is equivalent figure, Leven thousand 493. It is crystal-clear that the removal of the deterrent system is what we expected, it has encouraged more and more people to make the journey to the United Kingdom which they have done so in increasing means and enclose 37 the Government formally proposes that safety act that underpinned our deterrent and we are grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe for shaping his intention that does not stand part of the bill.

Pursuing this path the Government is formally repealing a policy introduced by the previous Government that sought to address the issue of Illegal Migration Act source. Close 37 is not merely repealing a piece of legislation but reveals a strategy designed to make clear that the United Kingdom would not BS of such illegal and those that pay criminal gangs would not be rewarded with indefinite leave to remain. And I appreciate the arithmetic of this situation of clause 37 that will stand part of the bill, however, on these benches we are very clear that Britain needs to have a deterrent if we are to have any hope of stopping the boats and securing the borders and that offsets the National Crime Agency.

There must be 1/3 country scheme in place where illegal migrants are removed to a safe third country and allowing their claims to be processed and to simply remove the previous without any form of alternative is naive and reckless, so cut the novel of the Minister explain how the Government is going to deter Illegal Migration Act? What is the replacement? The numbers speak for themselves. The removal of the deterrent must increase the number of crossings and the Government is instead proposing to legislate itself and the situation whilst welcoming a greater number of migrants and taxpayers.

We on this side of your Lordships house of course stand part of the bill and on that basis I picked him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have welcomed close 37 warmly here and for some of us it 37 warmly here and for some of us it is the best part of the bill, so I is the best part of the bill, so I am really pleased to be able to am really pleased to be able to unequivocally support my Frontbench, the Noble Lord the Minister. My
16:35
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
the Noble Lord the Minister. My Noble Friend the Minister did not have the pleasure of sitting through the debates about the Rwandan bill in this House and I do not really want to go through it all again because it is like a nightmare in my mind identities quite difficult to recall everything that was said at the time but I would remind the committee that on a number of occasions your not ship house rejected key bits of this bill and only 23 because of that majority of the comments we have ping-pong ping-pong ping-pong and eventually we had to give in, but to now try and resurrect it through this clause of hours seems to be a bit perverse, so if I may just remind the noble Lords white we were so opposed to the Rwanda bill, first of all, I will see if I can read my own writing, failure to meet the concerns of the Supreme Court, saying Rwanda is safe then for always does not make it safe, and I can remember the noble and learned Lords on the crossbenches saying yes, we are be asked to say that night is day, and put that into legal form, it is ridiculous, so the lawyers among us, that was really quite distressing that we added our name to that and the UNHCR United Nations refugee's concerns at the heart of which is the belief that the bill or the act was not compatible with international refugee law, refugee convention, the application of the Human Rights Act highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the current Chair is no longer in his place but I am sure he would agree with the previous committee said, and that committee emphasise the universality of human rights which this piece of legislation wrote a cart and horses through.

There were particular concerns about the treatment of GBC concerns about the treatment of GBC I plus people who potentially would not be treated well and there were concerns about children, and that was one of the main issues that I took up during the passage of the bill, the treatment of age just about to children and fears that they would be removed to Rwanda because they had been assessed as being adults, and then there was kind of difficult provision to if they could prove that they were children and they are being sent back to the UK as part of the effect and many of us thought that was dehumanising children and went against children's rights.

We will to be debating, I'm sure my Noble Friend the Minister will be terribly pleased to hear that we will be debating the age assessment later during the committee, but I think it is worth pointing out that this point that just yesterday the newspaper published the latest analysis by the Bamber foundation of SOI data and that found that at least 678 asylum seeking unaccompanied asylum seeking children were initially classed as adults, but then found to be children by local authorities, and that was over half of those that were so referred.

Now, had the were so referred. Now, had the Rwanda act mean in operation now, how many of those children might have been sent to Rwanda and gotten stuck there? That is the question that I look forward to. And there was never a proper rate, impact assessment or anything like that. And then just finally in response to the Noble Lord, talking about the deterrent, I seem to remember in all the paperwork we were given it was probably an impact assessment or something that it was a very clear reference to academic work that suggested there is no evidence of deterrent effect in this kind of legislation.

And the Noble Lord talked about as being a soft touch for illegal migrants, but please can we remember that most of those who come across the boats, putting their lives at risk, are seeking asylum, they have an international right to do so, please do not let us write them off as illegal migrants. That is all I wanted to say, but I warmly welcome that the Government have taken this step, the very positive step, in the name of human rights, and international refugee law.

and international refugee law.
16:40
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
I thought that Noble Lord Davies of can made an admirable speech, gallantry in the hopeless cause is always extremely impressive, I thought of the gallant knight in Monty Python who has all of his limbs/of but bravely says no, it is limbs/of but bravely says no, it is only a flesh wound. I think also that they slightly abbreviate the history of the Rwanda act in this House and it begins with the Rwanda treaty that this has recommended on the advice of the International Agreements Committee that could not and should not be ratified until the various supervisory and legal constructs needed as set out in the treaty because they did not exist, they were to be sent out with various judges and appointed in courts to perform supervisory and monitoring procedures, none of that existed and this has recommended that the treaty should not be ratified.

On the bill itself I think that there were three fundamental problems for this House. First, as Baroness Lister said, the fundamental Alice in wonderland absurdity that we can, by so voting, change facts. We can make Rwanda safe by declaring Rwanda safe. And run by the Noble Lord Clerk speaking rather powerfully on the subject. Secondly, there is the problem of our international commitment. It was impossible in view of this House, voted several times, to reconcile with our international commitment what the bill did and what the what the bill did and what the treaty did.

We were telling people that you may never have your claim for asylum heard in this country. You may claim asylum in Rwanda. You may claim from the Rwanda Government the right to become a citizen of Rwanda, but you may never claim the right to become a citizen of the United Kingdom. We are going to send you to Rwanda and we are never going to let you come here and we are never going to hear your case. And to make that fit with the refuge convention is what this House so determined and keeping the Rwanda determined and keeping the Rwanda act of the group would be absurd.

If we mean what we say about the overall legal space, global order, then we really need to pay attention when what we are doing ourselves is clearly in breach of a central plank in the rules-based order, so saying that it is completely different from what this Government understands what this Government understands they are seeking to do with outsourcing, I am sorry, with off shoring the exercise, I do not like that, think it is a very bad idea that people's claims should be considered abroad because I think it is harder to ensure that they get appropriate legal advice in their assessment and things like that and more difficult for the asylum cases more difficult for the asylum cases in foreign countries.

But that is completely different from what we were going to do with Rwanda. There we were not just offshore, we were offloading, we were putting on the Rwanda Government the responsibility of considering the future of these people and seeing absolutely nothing to do with us and we refused to touch it. And that simply will not do. I do think that we have to applaud Lord Davies and I note that his Scottish colleague was cunning enough to disappear before it came to the question of whether we should have to stand apart as part of number 37.

I am a Scotsman and I know that there are battles that it is sometimes best not to fight. I think it is very gallant that the Noble Lord is here to make his case, but it would be absurd if he were to
16:46
16:46
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-
perspective, why was this particular policy chosen? It was chosen because it was replicating the only purely successful means of stopping illegal immigrants coming on boats to a country, which is the Australian example. Instead of Rwanda of course their island was Nero in and they established over a period of 10 years or so a successful arrangement whereby the people coming in on boats from across the Timor Sea were immediately detained and sent within 24 hours to the island and then treated.

They immediately stopped the boats. Not only that, but it has led to a cross-party arrangement in Australia which frankly we could die for. The Liberal National party that brought in these arrangements, the Labour Party then eventually won a general election and abolished the arrangements, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Australian arrangement was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offshoring, not offloading. It was offloading as well, because the decisions were taken by because the decisions were taken by people on the island at the government there, at the behest of government there, at the behest of the Australian government. The Australian government had a backup situation, it wasn't totally handing it all over, but it was very it all over, but it was very similar. Very similar to the arrangements of Rwanda. Indeed, with arrangements of Rwanda. Indeed, with Rwanda we not only have the arrangements with that government arrangements with that government but a backup arrangement, a monitoring committee which he himself acknowledged during the himself acknowledged during the course of that those debates composed of the most distinguished composed of the most distinguished international lawyers who would check up whether anything was going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrong. I just wanted to draw him back,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to draw him back, just in case people had missed it, the very interesting political the very interesting political example he gave. Which are in conversations with a member of the Australian government I can validate. An interesting point he validate. An interesting point he made, the Australian scheme was introduced by a liberal government the equivalent of the Conservatives, then reversed by a Labour government, which then realised they had made a terrible mistake. When it came back into government it realised the scheme is one they wanted to keep.

I wonder if he thinks that might perhaps be what happens to this government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience of trying to deal with this important issue. Well, exactly. That's a good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, exactly. That's a good point. We made the point in relation to ID cards recently, that on the to ID cards recently, that on the worst aspects -- one of the worst aspects of our system of government is a new government coming in and is a new government coming in and instantly reversing policies put through by the previous government. through by the previous government. ID cards was an example when my noble friend admitted we might have noble friend admitted we might have been wrong.

In some cases I think we were right, we should have cancelled HS2, Lord Parker would not necessarily agree with me. Sometimes new governments get it right as well new governments get it right as well as getting it wrong. But the constant changing of policies between governments of this kind is between governments of this kind is a real issue, and the Australia got it right. Because they liberal government brought it in, the Labour government then rejected it, government then rejected it, realised they were wrong, the Liberal government brought it back, Labour accepted it and they now have a bipartisan approach which effectively means there is very effectively means there is very little illegal immigration into Australia.

It's an example of this problem being dealt with. Not only that, but the bipartisan process in Australia enabled them to go on to deal with legal immigration in a very transparent way. There's a debate every year with a proposal from the government, how many legal immigrants should be accepted into the country, broken down by different categories, by students, by families, by workers in various categories and so forth, by asylum seekers. That is debated in Parliament, and a view was taken.

I think that is a model of what we all try to achieve here. If we could get to that position here, with a bipartisan approach and an open debate, that would be wonderful. debate, that would be wonderful. This may seem like Monty Python land, it's fantasy, but it is a reality in Australia.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do think it is important that he recognise what the Australian he recognise what the Australian government did and did again was to arrange for Australian asylum arrange for Australian asylum hearings to take place offshore. What we were arranging was for people to be told that they could never have a United Kingdom asylum hearing. We were going to forcibly hearing. We were going to forcibly send them to Rwanda, where if they send them to Rwanda, where if they wished they could have a Rwandan asylum hearing.

That is completely different.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different. The fact is the Australians

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact is the Australians arranged a successful deterrent. And that is what all governments are that is what all governments are trying to achieve. And what the last Conservative government was trying to achieve was a deterrent not to achieve was a deterrent not entirely the same as the Australian entirely the same as the Australian example, but broadly the same with many checks and balances as the noble Lord must agree, many checks and balances to ensure that people work properly -- were properly treated.

That's what the present government is throwing away. All that effort, or that finance, or that agreement, or that legislation, three bills also, all that effort is being chucked aside for nothing in effect. Because this bill gives you no deterrent factor at all. It's absent completely. We all agree the gangs should be smashed. And that work can carry on side-by-side with any other work on a deterrent, but there is no work on a deterrent going on of the kind that the previous government had.

And we do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need a deterrent. Can we just nailed this myth, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can we just nailed this myth, it was not a deterrent. Between the signing of the partnership with signing of the partnership with Rwanda on 14 April 2022 and 5 July when this government took office, when this government took office, 83,500 people arrived by boats. Some deterrent, my Lords!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deterrent, my Lords! It was never put into operation, as Lord Davies put. It was never put as Lord Davies put. It was never put into operation. The idea you can say into operation. The idea you can say that it didn't work is nonsense, because it was never actually tried. First of all there's all the judicial reviews and challenges judicial reviews and challenges which the government had to sustain, then there was the general election and so forth.

It never actually happened, so it's a myth to believe that somehow or other it did not work or it was not a deterrent. We don't know, frankly. And it's a great pity about all this that we will never know whether it would have been a deterrent. I fully confess, I don't know whether it would have acted as a deterrent or would have acted as a deterrent or not. No one could say. Indeed in the case of Australia, it was quite a long time before people realised this was an effective deterrent.

It took about 10 years before it was fully realise that it worked and it fully realise that it worked and it was a means of doing it. So a policy without a serious deterrent is not really a policy at all. I fully respect that the government, I'm sure the Minister will say what they are now doing with discussions with France and so forth as considerable potential as a means of deterring people coming across. First of all, it does depend on relations with France.

While I'm all in favour of having favourable relations with France, and I do believe the UK and France are particularly important countries in the European context these days and I fully commend what happened over the last couple of days. I thinking Charles in particular played a blinder ringing the countries together. Nevertheless, I think we have to look at whether this will be a deterrent. The Minister may not have much information on this, I understand talks are going on this afternoon. Therefore he may not answer questions, but what we know at the moment is that only 6% of people will be sent back under this scheme.

So it's hardly a deterrent, to say you've got 94% of them will stay here and only 6% will be taken back. Obviously it's sensible to start in a small way, I'm sure the Minister will argue that, and ramp it up as time goes on. But I do also think if you've got a whole gamut of people coming over, and only a small proportion are returned, what sort of deterrent is that? Will it not also fall foul of the problems that the previous government had, with any individual who is asked to go back to France immediately having recourse to a lawyer, seeking to stay here, and perhaps succeeding in that effect.

Therefore the whole scheme begins to unwind in a morass of legal challenges. That's what really happened to the last government's problems, they became bogged down in a whole series of legal challenges. And that is the danger, that's when we come to the ECHR and all the rest of it. Unless you have a clear plan, and the governments had a year to think about all this, unless you have a clear plan which encompasses all the other extraneous elements which protrude into the problems you have you really don't have a serious possibility of stopping the boats.

So I do think that, while I understand the government having decided not to go ahead with the Rwanda plan has given itself the resources which were devoted to Rwanda and has used that in a new way to develop this particular bill, it will have to go very much further if it hopes to stop the boats. I'm afraid so far we do need a much more decisive, a much more thorough, and a much more holistic approach to this problem than we've had so far.
16:59
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to strongly support my noble friend Lord Davies. Unlike a number of noble Lords here I was unable to take part in the earlier iterations of debate on this bill, I was a strong supporter of it but as a member of the government it wasn't within my area of responsibility. I was sadly excluded. Unlike others, I relish the opportunity to have a chance as a volunteer to speak in support of it this afternoon. Fundamentally, this argument is about whether or not you believe in the deterrent effect.

We had on Tuesday a debate, and on previous occasions, the challenge we face and I think Lord Alton when he was setting out the amendments he tabled earlier, the enormous number of displaced people around the world who would and other Refugee Convention potentially have a claim for asylum. The fact is those volumes cannot all be accommodated here. Of course, the extra challenge we get from the issue of small boats crossing the channel directly goes to your interpretation of that convention, it was the point the noble Lady Baroness Lister talked about when she talked about people coming across the Channel from France.

It's the joint committees view, but it is not a universal view and it's not my view, that the Refugee Convention protects people fleeing persecution who come directly to the UK. I strongly believe if you have come, most of these people enter the European Union on the southern borders so they have crossed, let me finish the point and I will take her intervention. They cross a number of safe European countries before they get to their final safe EU country of France. So they may well, I absolutely accept a number of them, not all of them some of them are economic migrants, some of them are fleeing persecution.

They haven't come directly to the UK, therefore I do not feel they benefit from the protection of the convention. On that point I will take the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is not simply what I say about the director of human rights says the director of human rights says but the commission on refugees that but the commission on refugees that is given responsibility and they're is given responsibility and they're very clear that that the Rwanda act went against that convention and the went against that convention and the do not accept this interpretation of what coming from a safe country what coming from a safe country means.

But they also asked, we talk about all these people coming here, but what proportion of refugees do but what proportion of refugees do we actually take or of asylum seekers that come to this country as seekers that come to this country as opposed to other European countries

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and this is not a country that is taking more than our share, so to speak. Festival, I do not accept that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Festival, I do not accept that the UN is the arbiter of what the convention means. It is our job in convention means. It is our job in this House and the House of Commons to make the laws and to set out our to make the laws and to set out our immigration policies subtracted to policies which has sometimes a very policies which has sometimes a very eccentric view of the world but it is not one supported by the British people and on this point, and this comes down to the point that one thing I believe very strongly, I am a very strong supporter of our long tradition of taking genuine asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom but we can only do that if we retain public support for it.

And one of the things I would say to those that oppose stronger and tougher controls on who can come here and make it clear that it is only people that follow our laws as they are in danger of forfeiting that public support and confidence and at some point if we do not deal with this issue the public and I think they're getting very close to it will get to the point where they say we just do not want anyone, we are not interested in the circumstances, we are not interested in what has happened, want to control the number of people that have come here and I think that would be a tragedy and I would say to those that are opposed there running a real risk of entering public opinion so that it does not support it.

When we get this right, I referenced earlier in the week some schemes for those fleeing the Russian illegal invasion of Ukraine and when we get these schemes right they have huge problems, in my part of the world I have no complaints about Ukraine, but when people think Ukraine are taking the Mickey out of us is they do with the crossings, public support is not there, and it is not supportive and I think that we should be mindful of saying that we have to carry the public with us.

Now, on this issue about deterrence, I think that have, I think that we have demonstrated, noble friend, earlier, in his remarks, has demonstrated this. And I thought it was very telling that one political party in Australia opposed the scheme and when they came back they recognise that it was necessary. I although politically it would be very convenient if that happened that in the end what it is proposing was a failure and they suffered some political damage for it, but, actually, wanting my country to be successful, I think we have had some responsibility but I actually do not want that to happen and I want to get this right and I think that the Rwanda scheme if we had been able to implement it and we want the election would be a deterrent and send a very clear message that paying thousands of pounds to smugglers across the channel was a fruitless endeavour and the one thing that we know about people smugglers is they are expecting what they pay for and if they were not able to get that and to stay here than they absolutely would not have and that business model but have collapsed.

Now, I completely accept this perfectly reasonable point for this perfectly reasonable point for people to disagree with the Rwanda scheme and the way it was set up, whether it was Rwanda or a different country, but the problem they have got is that close 37 repeals our scheme and as my Noble Friend said there is no alternative deterrent at all and we have just seen this afternoon we have not seen all the detail of the one in one out scheme that has now been announced and the problem with that is as my Noble Friend said I I'm not sure what the legal underpinning of that is and it would be a response to this debate if he could set out without the scheme that has been announced today, both in its pilot and its full form would require any further legislation to make sure it is implemented, if it does need primary legislation whether it will be accepted in this act before the House.

But also I fear it would be subject to enormous legal challenge and we now have exactly the same problems as we did with the Rwanda scheme to take ages to be able to scale it up. The final floor is the point that the public want to make, the stop the volume of people coming in and a one in one out scheme by also the composition of the people coming in and by definition a one in one out scheme absolutely does not reduce the numbers if we have the setback to France we get another person who may change who they are but we are not going to do the numbers, so I think that a lot of the public, the scheme is by its definition a failure.

So, as I said, I strongly support my Noble Friend said and I think the Government is making a terrible mistake from my perspective but for its own perspective I think that welcome though some of the measures are, and there are some measures in this bill that support the powers the Government has and some of the later clauses, the strength being controlled in those working eagerly, I think they're very welcome that where the bill has measures that are strengthening the system I support them, but I think that this clause completely removing a deterrent without anything, not amending it, not changing it, not completely scrapping it I think is a mistake and I fear that the Government will come to regret it.

And that might be a short-term political answer for us but actually not for the country and I would rather if they had had some disagreements with the detail they had reflected on that and if there was a clause here that was making changes to the Rwanda scheme and the weight was dealing with the processing, maybe even picking up the point that the Noble Lord Kerr made about where you did the processing and altering the nature of the scheme, that would at least have been a better argument I think than just scrapping it overnight without anything at all.

And I fear the movement will come to regret having done so. We will know from the very robust remarks of my Noble Friend that we know best to stop them making that mistake and I hope that we are proved to be correct.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I well remember those very long evenings in the last two years where evenings in the last two years where we debated Rwanda and the Safety of we debated Rwanda and the Safety of Rwanda Act and I think the words of Pyrrhus come to mind because noble Pyrrhus come to mind because noble Lords on the then opposition and the crossbenches and the Liberal crossbenches and the Liberal Democrats, they did, eventually, prevents the bill in an act from happening.

They said one such small victory will do because I do think victory will do because I do think the whirlwind of overpromising to the whirlwind of overpromising to smash the gangs and not potentially delivering, do think it is important to, again, make the point that there to, again, make the point that there is no Plan B. Because we have spent £209 million this year giving money £209 million this year giving money to the French. And yet we are told to the French.

And yet we are told that we might send back 50 illegal that we might send back 50 illegal migrants per week, that is one in 17 migrants. Remember, at the time that the Rwanda policy was developed, the the Rwanda policy was developed, the number of illegal entrants across the channel was 45,720 across the channel was 45,722. And now we are in a position that we have had a 55% increase in those channel crossings in the last year, so it is not working, and of course my Noble Friend is right to make the point that it is impossible to judge the efficacy of the policy because it was never rolled out properly and it is no good that noble of the Minister complaining about that because his Government for purely cynical political reasons decided to draw a line in the sand and curtail and end the scheme.

The scheme was popular with the public. Even after the Supreme Court hearing and judgement in November 2023 in Sebastopol found that 47% of people supported it and only 26% were against it. For too long our asylum system had been overwhelmed by those who sought to abuse our generosity and bypass legal immigration routes. The current system was not only unsustainable, but fundamentally, and still is, unfettered those who follow proper procedures and wait patiently for their applications to be processed through legitimate channels, because the scheme was always about breaking the business model of people smuggling.

And the partnership, the Rwanda partnership, addressed the root cause of this crisis by fundamentally disrupting the business model of criminal gangs who profited from their misery, and I think we agree that is the priority. When people understood that making dangerous channel crossings would not lead to permanent settlement in the UK, the economic incentive for these journeys disappears. And this was not merely theoretical, but as my Noble Friend said, there have been examples of countries working together, for instance, in Australia, but also Denmark and Israel, for instance, to return those irregular or illegal migrants.

Far from abandoning our humanitarian obligations, the legislation actually strengthened our ability to help those most in need by creating an orderly unmanaged system, we could better focus our resources on genuine refugees who required our protection. Rwanda is a safe country with the growing economy and commitment to refugee protection offered a new life in dignity and opportunity. Andy act we asserted Parliamentary Sovereignty and matters of this and British people voted repeatedly for Government committed to controlling immigration and this legislation ensures that elected representatives are not foreign courts, and I know that some noble Lords do not like that term, but nevertheless, they determined how we implement our policies.

And there were economic benefits as well and we also heard how expensive the Rwanda scheme was and actually by the time of the general election I think we might say that the national office found that it was we had spent something like 380 was we had spent something like £380 million which I do not think is an insignificant amount of public money. Of course, but the novel of the Minister points to 700 the novel of the Minister points to 700 million figure. I would like him to perhaps write to me to outline how he gets that because I am not sure how they would necessarily agree with it but then again we are now spending every year on the asylum system and hotels for £0.7 million per yer, so I think that in terms of a cost benefit analysis, a scheme that potentially reduces that factor was probably better value for money.

The legislation demonstrated Britain's commitment to international cooperation in addressing global migration challenges and, of course, the Government approved of this in principle. We saw that slightly unedifying sight in May of the Prime Albania to go cap in hand to the slightly dubious Prime Minister of Albania who is seeking offshore processing facilities in Albania. Unfortunately, several months to late and the Italian Government got in before and the charms surpassed those of Sir Starmer. I cannot think why. But the Government obviously believes in the principle of offshore processing of asylum seekers and it is disingenuous to say that is not the case.

And we wish them well if they wish to pursue other opportunities to explore working and collaborating with other countries. The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 represented compassionate but firm Government and compassionate to odds refugees that deserved our protection to vent abuses of our asylum system. And this legislation delivered on our manifesto commitment of 2019. But, as I said, Labour appears and crossbenches in the Liberal Democrats ambitions all unelected and unaccountable can afford this legislation to undermine, introduce, and attack the bill at every turn.

Not to improve it or to scrutinise it but to wreck it, and of course we should not be surprised at the claims by lawyers in this House, that legislation was unlawful, which demonstrated our own antidemocratic inclinations, and propagating fiction that unelected courts have sovereignty over our own unelected Parliament, and a Government with a strong elected mandate, I will just finish this point, Parliament is supreme, as a casual reference to section 7 and 23 of the constitution reform act, 2005.

I will give way to reform act, 2005. I will give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cast a vote two weeks ago along with the members of this House and with the members of this House and the House of Commons, the senior judge for the United Kingdom, to a European Court of Human Rights. He is the only elected British judge that exists.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The European Court of human rights is not recognised as a traditional court of jurists, as one traditional court of jurists, as one would recognise, for instance, the US Supreme Court. Many of the representatives representing their representatives representing their countries are from NGOs who have vested interests in different areas. They are not comparable, for They are not comparable, for instance, to our own Supreme Court and many others. I stand to be and many others. I stand to be corrected, but this is the debate we had during the discussions and deliberations of the Safety of deliberations of the Safety of Rwanda Act.

The erroneous notion that international law is sovereign of the UK Parliament and we cannot of the UK Parliament and we cannot pass law contrary to the international treaty, such as the ECHR, is pernicious and hugely ECHR, is pernicious and hugely undermines the faith and trust the electorate have in our governance. electorate have in our governance. And as such, a notion, such a notion was actually explicitly refuted in a Supreme Court ruling in 2021. Real Dunstable damage is being done by such mischaracterisation and areas.

The accident report for the Centre for Policy Studies, authored by my noble friend, recently published, highlights that the proportion of asylum claims granted for the first time jumped from 25% in 2010 to 67% in 2033. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case. -- 2023. Why are we so out of step with so many other countries, such as France, Spain and Germany? Thousands of asylum seekers are awaiting appeal outcomes, with 40% using, citing human rights grounds.

This government has instead doubled down government has instead doubled down on a low -- Law fair, under the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law. Today, these papers report our Attorney-General has apparently appointed himself as Deputy Prime Minister, with an effective veto over all government policy with a " Snitch", encouraging civil servants to dob in ministers who fall failed to the damaging interpretation of international law. This extends to vetoing potential legislation it will not end well.

To finish, my Lords, this government did have a great opportunity to consolidate, to build on the work we have done in government, and we would have cheered them on and wished them well. It is a great matter of regret, for the future of our country, for people who are looking to government, to protect the safety

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and security of our borders, that it was not possible they were able to do that. My Lords, I rise to support my
17:19
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friends in opposing this clause. While I will try to avoid clause. While I will try to avoid repeating what my noble friends have already said, if we take a starting point, I actually did speak in the debate at the other end on this. Because it was important that, as has already been somewhat alluded to, this actually did turn out to be quite a significant deterrent, and I appreciate the Minister may disagree with my interpretation of that.

But he will remember the fact that when this started to be happening and became law, during that process, people started moving to Ireland, Dublin, it happened. People left this country because they were concerned about being caught up in this process and being sent to Rwanda. People could see it with their own eyes. If we think back to 2022, when the number of crossings meant that 45,000 people came to our shores through small boats. Then it did start to form.

When the Prime Minister of the Times announced. And Minister of the Times announced. And we have seen that that then, there was legal wrangling, all of a sudden, people coming across legal crossings started to rise again. The numbers cannot be refuted. And sadly, I appreciate this ended up in the Labour Party manifesto for change, -- Plan for Change manifesto, that they would save money, saving a few hundred million more on ending hotels, that actually hasn't happened.

But nevertheless, what we have seen in the first half of this year is 20,000 people coming to these shores. That's a significant uplift. And with no deterrent. That doesn't seem to be any change in the trend happening. I hope actually what the Prime Minister is announcing, or has announced, while we've been debating this particular amendment, will be successful. I want the questions of my noble friend, Lord Harper. -- I will not repeat the questions. One thing I think is critical is to actually come back to the constitutional arrangement, which is why we entered where we were.

We had the Neighbourhood and Borders Act in 2022, then we had the Illegal Migration Act in 2023 and I am not going to debate that, because we will come onto that later in committee. But fundamentally, after the High Court had ruled in favour of the then government, obviously, Court of Appeal, then five members of the Supreme Court, spoke unanimously. I do actually think it was perfectly valid for the UK government, he was responsible for -- Who is responsible for international, to try and affect our Rwanda is aligned by people, these five judges, and yes, that was also considering international representations, made by lawyers, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, but nevertheless, I think as I referred to in a previous contribution on this issue, Rwanda is a prominent member of the Commonwealth.

It is a nation that actually joined the Commonwealth because of values. The Commonwealth doesn't just let anybody in. Also, Rwanda had just recently held a presidency in the Commonwealth. That, in itself, is no mean feat. It was perfectly valid for the government, because as we know, if judges come up with the decision judges come up with the decision that Parliament doesn't like, the course or recourse is for Parliament to put in place a new law. So, at the time, I was more than happy to support this legislation.

And I do respect that this is a manifesto commitment. But it does feel very tokenistic. As my noble friend has pointed out, the scheme in Australia, probably a number of factors, not only the offshore and processing, but also return away policy of how the Australian Navy work, in terms of votes. But nevertheless, being clear that the government was not going to accept a legal criminal activity -- Illegal criminal activity, and we all know it was the smugglers, who probably don't care if people live or die, who pushed them out of a very dangerous Channel.

I think the government... This is just one line in a campaign. And I think the government will come to regret not having something effective in this regard, as they will come onto the Illegal Migration Act later. With that in mind, I encourage the government to think carefully about what actually did happen. And to recognise that every time it undermines a deterrent, unfortunately, the people handing over thousands of pounds to smugglers will just increase. And that is something to which I am sure everybody in this House does not want to see.

want to see.
17:25
17:25
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for this debate on clause 37. I sort of apologise to the noble Baroness Lister and the noble Lord Kerr, for forcing them to go through it yet again. I admire their tenacity and those who were here in the House at the time, all sides, for sticking at it and making this House's views known, to the then government, during the passage of the Safety Of Rwanda Act Simon Immigration Act 2024. -- Asylum and Immigration Act." There is an agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Baroness Coffey, Lord Jackson, Lord Harper, Lord Horam, a the objectives of the government.

I will try to explain why we have honest political disagreement between us because this government has taken the view that the Safety Of Rwanda Act was expensive, ineffective, contrary to human rights and legislation and not greatly meaningful, in terms of the delivery of objectives, that I know, again, Lord Horam outlined very clearly, about the potential for a deterrent. If I look, and I will just say again, that between the signing of the agreement on 14th of April 2022, and July 5, forming a new government, 83,500 people arrived in small boats during that time for some 31,079 of them in the year to March 24.

Deterrent or not, I don't think individuals who were arriving, thinking of monitoring closely the passage of the act, they were taken of the printable behind the accident there was no deterrent available there. And as to costs, our views of the figure of 700 million, and the noble Lord Jackson asked me to break it down for him. I am grateful to helping with that figure. £290 million was paid to the Rwandan government, just as a sort of arrangement fee. £50 million was spent on flights, current and in advance.

£95 million was spent on detention centres, £280 million was spent on fixed costs of the scheme. And I confess, my Lords, I slightly underestimated the £700 million, because in fact, it was £715 million spent to date for actually, if we look at the savings, that potentially are in play, not just the 750 million that we spend, that is what we spend, but actually, we have potentially saved £100 million in upcoming annual payments to Rwanda, we have saved a further £120 million, the UK will otherwise be liable to pay, once 300 individuals have been rotated, to Rwanda.

And that is without the additional costs internally in government, of staffing and operational costs to date. And I will just remind the House, if I may, that £715 million, plus the further costs, four people went to Rwanda. The noble Lord Horam, I think he is probably saying to me that it didn't have time to develop. For people went to Rwanda. And I think I'm right in saying, if not all of them, the majority of them were volunteers.

Volunteers. Now, the question is, is that a good use of taxpayers money? Let's not rely on me, because although I have a manifesto commitment on this issue, and although the government has implemented its manifesto commitment, I happened to be in the chamber and committee on Monday. On 8 July. When in column 1248 of Hansard, the noble Lord said " I happen to think many of us oppose the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish, because it was not going to work.

That is why we opposed it." When I was but a lad in opposed it." When I was but a lad in the Labour Party, the then governor was a minister, I never thought I would stand up in the House of Lords several years later and say I agree several years later and say I agree with John. But I agree with John. Lord Stephen, " Because it was a load of old rubbish." That is a Conservative backbencher now, who has held very high office in government, and I appreciate again, that three, forms of Parliament, with Lord Horam, in the other place have all expressed view, but it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not one I share. I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but ultimately, this is a decision about is Rwanda a safe country or not. Does the UK government believe that Rwanda is a government believe that Rwanda is a safe country? Or does it agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safe country? Or does it agree with That's a very good point that the noble Lady is making because members noble Lady is making because members of this House expressed very strong concerns when the bill was debated, in particular the previous government statement under section government statement under section 19 Ib of the Human Rights Act, they could not say that the bill was compatible with European Convention compatible with European Convention on Human Rights and that the act the government was seeking was to government was seeking was to overrule a Supreme Court judgement that it did not provide safeguards where Rwanda was subsequently deemed where Rwanda was subsequently deemed unsafe.

Again, I wasn't here. I confess I was having what we call an interregnum between the House of Commons and this House. Having Commons and this House. Having watched the debate from far that was one of the concerns raised, and in one of the concerns raised, and in fact the committee, Joint Committee on Human Rights report said it had incompatibility with the ECHR and more widely that the policy outsourced U.K.'s obligations under the Refugee Convention and the difficulties in guaranteeing compliance with the principle of those registrations.

Again, that was the reason why at that time members of the Labour Party, members of the Lib Democrats, numbers from the crossbenches and a number of Conservative peers rejected that proposal on several occasions until such time as the then House of Commons fulfilled its manifesto commitment I accept, to bring the scheme in. But the scheme was never going to work. Before I let the noble Lord Jackson, Lord Horam has said how do I know. I think I know because for people -- four people volunteered to go to the scheme...

The scheme did not work. Would not work. The lovable Lord Deben has confirmed in my view his view that it did not work. It's an honest disagreement between us and that's where we are. I will take the noble Lords intervention before I carry on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted that the Minister should praise my honourable friend Lord Ahmad. There are three things Lord Ahmad. There are three things certain in life, death, taxes, and the fact that he will disagree with the fact that he will disagree with his frontbench. That aside, on the his frontbench. That aside, on the issue of safety. For the avoidance of doubt the Supreme Court did not express a conclusive view about the express a conclusive view about the risk of article 3 ill-treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda itself that she was not the subject itself that she was not the subject of the hearing of the appeal and in the light of its conclusion the Supreme Court considered that it was Supreme Court considered that it was unnecessary for them to determine it, as such the High Court's it, as such the High Court's determination that Rwanda was in general safe for individuals removed under the MEDP was not disturbed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the fact of the matter. Politics is about the exchange of views and exchange of ideas and the delivery of particular policies, I think we have reached the impasse think we have reached the impasse whereby the noble Lord Davies and whereby the noble Lord Davies and opposition now backbenchers think that the scheme would have worked, the government thinks the scheme was expensive and wouldn't have worked. expensive and wouldn't have worked. That is the clear blue red water between us and this and I'm grateful for my noble friend Baroness Lister's particular support for the government in taking the steps we have done.

The UK will also exit the UK Rwanda treaty as part of ending this partnership and its therefore appropriate for the government to repeal the safety of Rwanda act clause 37 will achieve this. In doing so I think it's also important that we do actually address the issue which has been endemic in the discussion we had today, that somehow this was a deterrent and therefore the removal of this clause and removal of the scheme will end that deterrent. I just referred by May noble Lords to clauses 1 through 12 of this bill which establishes a new Border Security Command.

Which is putting in place resources of 150 million and 280 million over the next New Year's to establish very strong action on the meaningful issues which I think are important to all of us. The cooperation through the new border support commander with the French, the Dutch, the Germans, the Belgians to create cooperation on tackling the small boats at the source. The work at the border command has been doing with the French government as part of the preparations for today's conference between the president of the Republic of France, the Prime Minister and other representatives.

The work the government is doing in clause 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the spell to create new offences to bring people to justice if they provide activity on the issue of supplying articles, handling articles, collecting information and offences committed outside the United Kingdom. I bring clause 18 of the bill endangering. I bring powers to search on electronic devices to bring people to justice in that way. This bill is full of deterrent activity which, if and when implemented by the government, will make a real difference.

I'm pleased to say to the House that hot off the press today the Prime Minister and the president of the Republic have now finished their deliberations and the Prime Minister has confirmed a new UK France returns pilot speaking with the president of France at a with the president of France at a news conference just a few moments ago the Prime Minister said that the scheme will come into force in a matter of weeks. Migrants arriving via small boats will be detained and returned to France in short order, in exchange for every return a different individual be allowed to come here via safe and legal route which individuals in this House been pressing the government to have.

There will be strict security checks Tried to enter the UK illegally. The pilot suggests that 50 people per week in the pilot would be sent back to France across the channel which, as I recall even this week is going to be 46 more than left under Rwanda just in this very week alone. For the first time since we left the European Union UK has secured a bilateral agreement with France to pilot the return of illegal migrants across the channel and this tightly controlled pilot will be I hope the premise for further action downstream.

The UK France summit today has seen both nations strengthening cooperation on border security will stop we know there is no silver bullet on this issue, we know that the returns pilot as part of a border crackdown. The culmination, this goes to the value of the Border Security Command that's in this bill, the culmination of six months by the border communities commander with the Member for Pontefract and Castleford and Normanton, the French Interior Minister and French established new company demarche. That is real progress on developing real positive action going back even to our discussions about Interpol earlier today to ensure we tackle smuggling gangs, we disrupt their business models, we have stronger law enforcement and we dismantle this multi-million pound blackmarket.

Is not just about gangs, it's about lives. Rwanda scheme was ineffective, costly and didn't deliver on the government's proposals in this bill and the Prime Minister and the president of Francis statements today will add greatly to the potential to impact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this heinous crime and this heinous business for top Before he sits down can I check

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before he sits down can I check now that the Prime Minister and the French president have announced the French president have announced the details of the scheme, is his contention effectively that what has contention effectively that what has been announced today, once it has had a pilot and been scaled up effectively, the government's attempt to put a deterrent in place that he thinks will over the term of that he thinks will over the term of this Parliament have the desired effect of driving down the number of effect of driving down the number of people crossing the channel to as effectively low as you can get it? Is that his contention?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that his contention? There is a range of things the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a range of things the The border security bill as one, we put the 150 million and £280 million for future SR's into the Border Security Command. I work with the Security Command. I work with the French so far has only prevented 12,000 crossings this year alone 12,000 crossings this year alone through joint patrols and intelligence services for top we are funding a new unit of specialist officers to increase patrols, we got a new specialist intelligence unit from today stationed at Dunkirk being launched.

We got additional drone pilots being launched. We funded an extra 100 specialist National Crime Agency intelligence officers stationed with Europol going back to the point we mentioned earlier. The MCA have seized 600 boats. We've already got Germany looking a change gets laws because of action be taken with the Border Security Command, we put in place a landmark agreement separately with Iraq, we practised and worked Iraq, we practised and worked through illegal working raids and arrests have increased by 50%.

We boosted asylum decision-making with 30,000 people gone back since the election. 12% increase over the previous government. And we have work upstream with the arm and Albania to stop people making the journeys in the first place from those countries. If we're going to talk about more people coming, can we go back to 2016, can the noble Lord tell me how me people arrived on a small boat in 2016 compared with July 2024? I will tell him, 402,016, over 30,000 in 2024. We have a legacy of complete and utter Over which she was a significant member of the Cabinet, a significant failure of this government and I say to him now these measures are strong, practical measures.

The Rwanda scheme wasn't which is why commend clause 37 to the House and I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what we have said. If you chooses to vote at some point to remove clause 37, I and I think many members in this House will stand together to oppose him.
17:42
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank all the noble Lord to have taken part in this very interesting debate. Which has been an interesting microcosm of the numerous debates in this House over the last six -- few years. I was momentarily flattered by the term the fact that I had been afforded the term gallant by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and I realised quite quickly that it was an insincere... It will not be surprising for noble Lords in both the Liberal Democrat benches and in the government benches to hear that I disagree with more or less everything they have said in this debate.

The government particularly in relation to the deterrent. The government has not created a credible alternative to the Rwanda scheme, they have not grasped the necessity of stopping demand by deterring illegal migrants from making the journey in the first place and I Sibley cannot understand how the government leaves they can stop the boats without a deterrent. The Minister implies there is a deterrent, the government claims that simply instituting a Border Security Command with nothing to command and creating three new offences are going to deter illegal migrants.

This is clearly not the case. I would like to remind noble Lords, particularly picking up a point that Lady Lister made, what Professor David Coleman emeritus Professor of demography at the University of Oxford told the public Bill Committee and the other place, he said that it is very much second best to the idea of trying to deter migration or asylum claiming in the first place will top that of course was dismissed by the present government as being unfeasible, unworkable and unkind, so the Rwanda scheme was Scrapped.

It seems to me the only obvious way of deterring new printable person is by making the movement to Britain unattractive. Regardless of what the Minister or indeed the Liberal Democrats want to claim, offshore claims, offshoring claims to a safe third country has worked and has already been mentioned particularly by my noble friend on my benches, Australia is the only country that has been successful in stopping small boats, they did it by establishing offshore detention facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

This reduced arrivals to virtually zero. It has worked so far for the government to claim that Rwanda would never have worked, this is manifestly false. I hope the government does indeed come to realise what a mistake they have made by not instituting a deterrent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For now I will withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the bill. Question is the clause 37 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Clause 38 102 a
17:46
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Contents" have it. Clause 38 102 a In the absence of the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not in her place, I wish to move amendment 12, place, I wish to move amendment 12, A, and speak to the sequential is, because I was planning to speak in support of this amendment. Of course, I had assumed she would be here to explain it, so just briefly, I will quote from briefing we receive, or some of us received, which says that section 12, 28th 28 September 2033, has sought to enable the executive to, A, decide the lengths of all form of detention, and establish common law principle, which provides the judicial oversight, over the length of detention, as important safeguard against arbitrary detention, and, B, continue to detain persons after the reason for their detention, pending examination removal or deportation order decision being made within a reasonable period of time falls of reasonable period of time falls of way.

I suppose it would be as helpful to my noble friend, the minister, as I was in the last amendment, but I would first start by declaring and welcoming the appeal of most of the Illegal Migration Act, needless to say I don't support the other amendments in this group. But the admission of section 12, one of the very few sections to survive, is worrying because I feel it may reflect in attitude towards detention, that I had hoped to see the back of, with the change of government.

But returning to the question of detention, in the case of time-limit at a later date, I will probably be away then, I hope the committee will bear with me, for raising some general points about the tension now. The justification, I will cite the UNHCR's observations on the bill, where it emphasises that attention for asylum seekers and refugees should be a measure of last resort, both necessary and proportionate, in each individual proportionate, in each individual case. It therefore recommends repeal of section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act, which it fears could be, in some cases, the tension for periods inconsistent with standards of international refugee and human rights law.

Previously, it pointed to the policy of indefinite detention as a key point of concern. At this concern has to be the greater, so long as section 12 remains on the statute book. My Lords, as a full decade since the Lords, as a full decade since the inquiry on detention, that I served, a 28 day time limit was call for command attention. Detention should be an absolute last resort, with the presumption in favour of community- based solutions. It is depressing that despite Hansard's report, including that of the official Brook Housing Inquiry, making the same case in the intervening 10 years, here we are again.

One of those reports was by the Home Affairs Committee in 2019, chaired by the now Home Secretary. He pointed out that the UK is the only country in Europe without a limit on the length of time someone can be held in immigration detention. Having reviewed the evidence, it concluded that there is a rapidly growing consensus among medical professionals, independent inspectorate bodies, people with lived experience, and other key stakeholders, only urgent need for a maximum time limit. It then calls for the then government to bring an end to the definite immigration detention and implement a maximum 28 day time limit, with immediate effect.

That was 2019. Of course, nothing happened. And one has to ask, what has changed in the Home Secretary's mind? The consensus is still very much there. Indeed, the evidence of the harmful effect on health, particularly mental health, has mounted, including Russia, from the Royal College Of Psychiatrists, however, as refugee tales, who met with some of us the other day, said in their walking inquiry, the impact lasted long after release. They note that for those with lived experience, detention it never leaves you.

A series of reports into refugee women over the last decade have undermined the particularly damaging impact of detention, generally come on women. The majority of whom were survivors of rape and other forms of gender-based violence. Their most recent report warned that locking up women has abuse, re-traumatising them, and has lasting damage to their mental health. Shockingly, latest research found that despite the Home Office banning such practices, male detention centres staff are still subjected women intimate situations to constant supervision.

For a brief period, the previous government floated with alternatives to detention, with two pilot schemes. In an assessment of these pilots, the UNHCR wrote that alternative to detention provide a people centred approach to supporting asylum seekers, while waiting for case resolution, without having any evidence, of a reduction in compliance, with the UK Home Office directives. The evidence from the pilots shows a significant improvement in the mental health and well-being of participants, the alternative to detention are cheaper and offer better value for money, compared to the costs of detaining asylum seekers.

One would have thought that that would appeal to governments of any persuasion. It is disappointing that when we debated the guidance for the detention of vulnerable persons last October, my noble friend the Minister told us that it was the new government's policy to expand the detention estate. Apropos of that, I understand the review of that guidance is still ongoing and I wonder if my noble friend, the Minister can, can give me assurance Minister can, can give me assurance Strengthen it.

Whenever I have raised issues with ministers in the previous government, I was met with a semantic response, that detention is not indefinite, because it comes to an end. Yet, we all know that, in this context, indefinite means without a specified end or time limit. I hope very much that this semantic distinction did not lie behind the recent response to an oral question, when she stated immigration centres are not useful indefinite attention, because if there is no reasonable prospect for removal, a person has to be released.

Yet, in the year ending 31 March 2025, just over one third of those leaving detention had been held for 29 days or more. As many as 533 for six months or more. I trust that my noble friend will accept and do apply definite detention with important exceptions in this country, and I hope you will acknowledge the harm this does by those affected. We'll member of your Lordships house still have to make a case for time-limited minimal use for the detention a decade on from now? In conclusion, the repeal of section 12 of the IMA, is the absolute minimum needed to even begin to meet the UNHCR's concerns, echoed by the JCHR, which, like the echoed by the JCHR, which, like the UNHCR, also called for its repeal.

" To restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR." This point is underlined by the Bar Council, they and numerous other bodies argue for repeal with reference to the rule of law, and access to justice. I do hope that my noble friend will give serious thought to this. And also to the case that will be made in later amendments, for a clear time limit, and development of alternatives to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detention. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 38,
17:54
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 38, page 31, line 9, leave out 11 and inserts 12. My Lords, I rise to oppose this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment, and particularly, you amendment, and particularly, you would be surprised to know I don't disagree with everything Baroness Lister has just said. And let me set out the reasons why. She first of all mentioned, the Home Secretary Speculated and wondered why that might have been. I obviously cannot get inside the Home Secretary's mine. I expect what has changed between chairing the Home Affairs Committee and now is the Home Secretary is now the Home Secretary and responsible for protecting the borders and security of the United Kingdom, and when you hold that responsibility, you are sometimes confronted with reality.

And things Are is possible for keeping the country safe, and there is a cohort of people here who should be removed, and have no legal right to be here, and she has realised, unless you detain them, you are not able to carry out your functions of keeping the country safe. That may may not be the reasons why, the Minister can confirm it. For this reason, we don't detain people indefinitely, the power to detain people is in order to facilitate the removal from the country to pick the public.

And the Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds to believe that, and people are able to challenge that through the judicial process. And the noble Lady quoting centre statistics, I will quote the same statistics but the other way around, 2000 people are detained for 28 days or less. And it is true that some people are detained for a long period of time. If you go into the reason for that, most of those cases, the reason for the lengthy Is the responsibility of the individuals themselves, it is because they are trying to avoid being removed from the country they have no legal right to be in, from another legal challenge after legal challenge after legal challenge.

It is the reason why they are detained. If they wish to cease being detain, what they could do is comply with the deportation order that has been issued by the Home Secretary, get on a plane, and leave the country. It's the fact they don't wish to comply with the law that means they are held in detention. The Home Secretary must have a reasonable belief that she could ultimately remove them, otherwise she would have the legal power to detain them. If we were to have what the noble Lady suggests, which is a fixed statutory time period of 28 days, all that will do is give a bigger incentive to people with no right to incentive to people with no right to be in this country, to legally challenge decisions, and unless you can get all of those legal challenges heard, and decided within 28 days, all that you would do, is all of those people what had -- Would have to be let out of the tension in Sicily the country, and that would include people not just here illegally, but also a present danger, the people here in this country.

So I strongly support the ability of the Home Secretary to detain people and not to have a fixed time limit, which would simply be an incentive for those people to delay, and if the noble Lady looks into the details of who stays here, in detention for a long period of time, is people having to avoid leaving the country, when they are here, throwing up legal challenge after legal challenge. The other way of doing it if you don't want to detain people is to reduce the opportunities to challenge the decisions.

And for a deportation order to be able to be carried out swiftly, then we would need to detain people. But I'm afraid, I suspect, the Home Secretary has realised detention is necessary to protect the public and to make sure that we can enforce the deportation decisions that are necessary to be carried out. I understand why people don't like it, but I am afraid it is a bit naive to think that everyone who comes to this country or is in this country and overstayed their welcome, and is here without legal authority, they don't all go when they are asked to.

And you sometimes have to use the power of the state and detention and sometimes have to enforce by removal, because otherwise, they do not go. And if you do not demonstrate that you have a robust system again, you will have even more people coming here, if they think that, once they get here, they are never going to be removed. And one of the important reasons, why final point, of having a -- My final point of having a deterrent, when you look at the deterrent of people removed, you want to get to a position where the balance of enforced removals and those that go voluntarily is much more in favour of those who go on a voluntary basis, because it is quicker and cheaper, for everybody.

But that only happens if people realise they're going to have to go at some point. If people think they're going to get away with staying when they have no right to be here, then we have to use the powers that we have at our disposal, which actually, I accept isn't ideal, but I am afraid there are limited choices for ministers, if they want to enforce a robust immigration system. And it is having a robust and aggression system, detaining people where necessary, and removing them when necessary, is what ensures that you command the confidence of the public, that you have a robust system.

As I said, if that confidence disappears, the public will not support anybody coming in here, whether legally or not. And that would be, as I have said in debates on earlier closes, a tragedy. Roma, earlier clauses, a tragedy. -- Earlier clauses a tragedy.
18:00
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I will take a moment if I may, just to support the amendment, for the removal of section 12, and to address one or two of the points Lord Harper has made. I first of all would agree with him that voluntary methods of returns are obviously the best. They are usually done very speedily. They are done without -- They are done without fuss.. And when people have a chance to have that internal conversation, they work very well indeed.

I would put that as a number one factor in this whole issue when it comes to how you What is this amendment has in place is it intends to remove section 12 of the IMA, what that section does is it enables Home Secretary to decide the reasonableness of length of immigration detention, which in turn overturned common law principles which was made clear at the time we debated this in this House because the common law principle provides for judicial oversight over length of detention as a safeguard against arbitrary detention, that's one of the basis upon which the English and Welsh legal system stands.

The second thing is it has the power to the Home Secretary to continue to detain someone after the reason for their detention ceases. One of the objections is you need to be able to make these judgements. The principal that we are falling back on by removing section 12 is the existing common law base in this country because existing legislation provides very broad statutory powers to detain migrants with no time limit except for children and pregnant women.

But it's the courts you hold those powers indeed, and that's a very important safeguard which is part of the rationale for returning it to where it was before. That's why that should be restored. The JCHR supported the repeal in order to ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR, that's the protection of the right to be deprived of liberty respect liberty and assets in accordance with the law. And of course the other part is of course the UNHCR which annoys complained about this matter and they worry that the retention of section 12 leaves in place risk of Avatrade the detention of refugees and stateless persons and encourages it to repeal it.

It is not believing the situation we are taking away everything in protections, we are actually going back to a position where we could use existing legislation and built upon the common law principles of this country. We will support this amendment. I do wish to comment on the other two amendments in this group even though they haven't been talk to yet. I'm slightly bewildered but if I've got it right that the two amendments 112 and 113 introduce powers to detain unaccompanied asylum children who are exempt from removal in limited pre-removal scenarios and also that they can detain such unaccompanied children under these powers which would only become lawful if there were regulations made.

Bail is possible but restricted at a to 28 days depending on the grounds and legal challenges would be very limited during the first 28 days subject only to bad faith on exceptions. What that leads me to a five got those correct. What that leads me to understand is that these amendments would allow the detention for up to 28 days of children. And those children would then have to be detained in facilities, remember very well the sort of facilities that we used to have where there were cartoon pictures on the wall, Mickey Mouse, and you remember the arguments members of this House will member -- remember when the previous government asked for the removal of those cartoon characters on the walls of the children's detention centre.

What it does is it increases the time when these children are going to be detained stop the worst thing you can do for a young person is detain them for any length of time and the current way of dealing with it was maybe overnight, maybe 24-hour is was acceptable. But to think you could detain children for 28 days, I would hope that the government would reject these on the grounds that we already have existing legislation protecting children and we need to maintain and uphold that.

I could be wrong entirely if I've not heard the arguments put forward for it.
18:06
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I would just like to go back to what Lord Harper said in pointing out the problems we have with the amendment as it stands. Detention centres are used as Lord Harper said, for those with no legal right to be here and whether that's a man or a woman who has come with no legal right to be here and he was subject to detention, that is a very good reason. Those whose identity is being established whether is a risk of absconding.

If there were no detention after 28 days and the right to as the noble Baroness proposed, community arrangements instead, you wouldn't really be honouring the wish of the people of this country to control illegal this country to control illegal migration, or indeed lower figures because there would be constant fears that people who came here that any right to be here or whose identity was in doubt or who are at risk of absconding, they would likely to disappear into the ether and we would have no trace of them.

I don't either think it's a good idea to suggest that we make gender differences in applying the law. I think it's very important that the law applies equally to men and women. I'm sorry about the children but I think the message should be to the parents who have put the children in this position, do not do it, do not and change your children, do not subject them to the arrangements which must be made and the laws are to be upheld and stay elsewhere.

That would be a very good signal because we would save children from being put on small boats by what I believe to be responsible parents who may be endangering the lives of their very own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I therefore hope that we keep the detention centres in order for us detention centres in order for us long as is needed to keep people in detention centres for as long as it is needed under the arrangements now is needed under the arrangements now proposed in the bill and in proposed in the bill and in existence so that we can properly process those who have a right to be process those who have a right to be here and those who have no right to
18:09
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
here and those who have no right to Amendments 102 a, 115A, B, C, D and E in the name of the noble Lady are S... The noble Baroness Lady Jones seek to repeals section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the section sets out that relevant persons may be detained for as long as the Secretary of State deemed reasonably necessary to carry out examinations or removal, make an immigration or deportation decision issue removal directions.

As with much of these decisions to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act I question the noble Ladies intent on this point. Why does the noble Lady oppose the exercise of reasonable detention in order to carry out an examination or facilitate a removal process? As the government itself recognises, these are important powers which allow the government to facilitate an operable migration system. Even this government believes that section 12 should be retained then this tells us something about its necessity. I do wonder what the noble Lady proposes instead.

What would she do for instance if a person refused to undergo an examination? What would she do if a decision was made to remove a person but because the state could not detain them they simply ran off? This does not seem to us to be reasonable or proportionate amendment and I therefore oppose it on this basis. Turning to the amendments in my name, amendment one Monty which seeks to reintroduce section 11 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 which the government under this Bill is proposing to repeal.

This section of the act introduced a new legal power to detain individuals specifically in connection with the government's duty to remove people who came to the UK illegally. Let us be clear about the provisions in the section, section 11 provided immigration officers and the Home Secretary the clear legal authority to detain people who fell within the removal duty framework, to hold them lawfully during processing and enforced removals and also while incorporating safeguards for incorporating safeguards for children and pregnant women.

Chevron -- what in this does the government disagree with so much they feel they have to repeal the section of the act? You're clear on the side of house the people who come to the United Kingdom must be removed. Let me set up Mike position briefly and invite the Minister to explain why he and the government want to axe this provision from law. We believe as we have set up before that those who come to the United Kingdom illegally should not be allowed to remain.

What is the purpose of having law if we allow people to break it for no consequence? This is not the equivalent of allowing shoplifters to hang onto what they have stolen? Is this not the same as allowing those who keep hold of the things they have taken after they We are directly allowing people to benefit from their criminality and it is to us on this side, wholly irresponsible for a government to allow those who break our laws to benefit from their activities. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to defend what his government is doing.

To us the decision to repeal section 11 seems reckless. Furthermore our amendment 113 similarly seeks to reintroduce section 13 of the migration act of 2023 which sought to reduce the administrative burden on our courts by reducing the chance that we would be faced with vexatious appeals early on in the dissension process. This section also sought to delay access to immigration bail, this has many benefits the main one being would address the problem that individuals could be released on bail before the Home Office could organise their removal, leading to long delays, absconding or the person simply disappearing into the system.

Removing this provision poses a clear risk of complicating removals process, clogging up the court and fundamentally undermine the government capacity and ability to get those people who should not be in this country out. I hope the Minister will explain why the government think that this move is a sensible one. Can he assure the House now that this decision will not create any increase in the backlog? Can he confirm that this will not delay the process of removing those who come here illegally? And can he commit now to the re-incorporation of section 13 into this bill if any of his answers to those questions are in doubt.
18:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to noble Lords for the amendments to hand. I just want to first of all thank Baroness Lister for moving the amendment under half of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. I just wonder if I may first of all just acknowledge the question she raised on the adult at risk in detention guidance. I happen to know also that she has tabled a Parliamentary Question which is due... It's due for answer shortly. What I wanted to say to her if I may, I expect to respond to the review within a couple of months and that any changes in the proposals which is brought forward will be subject to Parliamentary approval and I will be answering her question in very short order in much more detail, and I hope that will help her to resolve that particular issue.

I am grateful to Lord Harper, Lord German and shadow minister for their contributions and to Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Lister. If I may I would like to start with amendments 112 and 113 which have been tabled by Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. These amendments seek to retain the powers of detention and the powers to grant immigration bail where a person is subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act of 2023. These amendments are reliant on the provision to impose a duty to remove on the Secretary of State which this We are going to be discussing in more detail why the government is seeking to repeal large parts of the act, in part we already dealt with, and also in future discussions.

But to summarise for the purpose of this groups, the vast majority of the Illegal Migration Act is being repealed, including provisions relating to the duty to remove, which is part of the government because my previous Rwanda scheme. The act was never fully implemented and where it was, in many cases, it brought, quite frankly, chaos. Put simply, without the duty remove, the associated powers of detention as the power to grant immigration bail, which are amendments 112 and 113 seat to retain, it would have no effect at all.

-- Seek to retain full also the powers that govern removal and deportation processes, As power to grant immigration bail, or the Secretary of State consider that to be the more appropriate action for to maintain, as the noble Lord wishes, the detention and immigration Bill powers under the Illegal Migration Act, would likely cause confusion and they cannot be affected without the duty to remove the Secretary of State has. So, for the moment at least, I ask they withdraw those amendments. The amendments in the name of Baroness Jones, which were helpfully moved by my noble friend, including amendment my noble friend, including amendment 102, A, that seeks to add it to the act being repealed, under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill for that we have had a discussion about the government repealing legislation doesn't work.

However, to support an effective system, certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act are being detained. Where they have been assessed as offering potential benefit. One of these measures is a section 12 of the act. I know my noble friend has moved her amendment, on behalf of Baroness Jones, on this issue. But I hope that I can at least explain to her where the government is coming from. So that she understands that in more detail. There is long-standing case law, which has culminated in the principles which provide, in effect, that intention is only lawful, where there is a realistic prospect of the person's removal from the UK within a reasonable timescale.

Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act placed two of the principles on a statutory footing, confirming, in primary legislation, that intention timeframes should always be reasonable for subsection 12 clarifies for everybody, I hope, what constitutes as reasonable in period of time, for the judge, period of time, for the judge, rather than the Secretary of State, for the cost to make. The Home Office is in possession of all the relevant facts and the best place to decide whether the continued detention is reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Section 12 also provides for detention to continue for a reasonable period, whilst arrangements are made for a person's release. This is particular important when we need to make provision for foreign national offenders to be placed on electronic monitoring or to make safeguarding referrals for vulnerable people. Section 12 has those fallible purposes. Which again, -- Valuable purposes which again, I hope help some of the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord harbour. Section 12 applies to all immigration detention powers, amendments 115, A, 2115, E, which consequently is what my noble friend has moved on behalf of Baroness Jones, seek to ensure that all immigration detention powers, that section 12 applies to, are repealed.

It is right section 12 is retained for all detention powers to ensure consistency. Whether that be for the detention of persons subject to examination, deportation order, or the administrative removal of persons who are unlawfully in the United Kingdom. These are essential tools that allow for the proper operation of our immigration system and the retaining of 12 and section 12, is part of that. Now, my noble friend may have a disagreement on that and may not be in favour of detention, per se, but the reasons I have set out are ones which, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and ones which the Home Secretary and myself in this House will be held accountable for.

I think it is important we retain that, otherwise we will have no effective ability to ensure that, for the reasons why, occasionally, people need to be detained, they are detained under a framework which has some legal backing to it. Whatever our disagreements with the previous government over the act as a whole, the decision to retain that is to assure the Secretary of State retains that ability to ensure the management of individuals, who may be on their way out of the United Kingdom, may be a danger to others in the United Kingdom, or maybe awaiting further assessment.

It's important that power is retained and therefore, I would urge my noble friend to come on behalf of Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jones, withdraw the amendment for now. I found the noble Lords who
18:21
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I found the noble Lords who spoke. -- I thank the noble Lords spoke. -- I thank the noble Lords who spoke and we will come back to the issue of detention later, I think it is helpful to have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the Baroness, Lady Lawlor, with our arguments, because I'm sure Lord German in particular, will be taking it on, when he comes to move his amendment later. I will just point out to the noble Baroness, no one is talking about the kind of people just roaming around, and people free to go where they like.

And there was no amendments of compliance with the Home Office directives. They are not just a holiday camp or something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry Baroness Lister what I meant was the community frameworks about what you spoke.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about what you spoke. A community Mac the pilots showed it is a very effective way, it is a very effective way, alternative to detention, but still kept people where they were supposed kept people where they were supposed to be. Just pointing that out. The to be. Just pointing that out. The noble Lady might like to read the report the UNHCR did about the report the UNHCR did about the pilots. I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support.

I think he explained rather more clearly what section 12 is about an idea. I thank section 12 is about an idea. I thank section 12 is about an idea. I thank him for that. My noble friend, the him for that. My noble friend, the Minister dealt with amendment 112 and 113, so I will not refer to and 113, so I will not refer to them. The noble Lord, Davies, asked them. The noble Lord, Davies, asked if this amendment was successful, and we removed section 12, what would happen then.

It is not just some strange situation we have never some strange situation we have never seen before. I won't go on much longer, I am conscious of time moving on. I am grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, I apologise for the kind of doubling up of a written question and saying it. But when I wrote the written question, I didn't realise, I don't think this amendment had even been tables full stops, the written question was an alternative, so, sorry he has had to put up with it twice.

I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to read what my noble friend said. I think it's very helpful to have it spelt out exactly why the government is not repealing section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. I suspect I still don't agree with him, but it is helpful to have those reasons. I think this provides helpful... Also, I understand and I won't push him, to deal with the points I made about indefinite detention, alternative detention and so forth, because that debate would be had at a later date, it is because I would be able to be there for it.

So, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
18:25
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. In clause 38, amendment 103, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hamwee. My Lords, with this group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, with this group of amendments, we return to issues relating to modern slavery and human trafficking, which we have debated. trafficking, which we have debated. trafficking, which we have debated. On the basis of what is described, I think, as the eminent quartet's amendments, led by Baroness May of amendments, led by Baroness May of Maidenhead. Who does have an amendment in this group, but obviously is not able to be here. It obviously is not able to be here.

It is very much on the same grounds as our amendment. I am also very conscious of time. And I am also conscious of time. And I am also conscious of the fact that a number of noble Lords have distance to get home. Tonight. It is a pity, because, this is an important set of because, this is an important set of amendments. Important issues. But I will do my best to let them catch will do my best to let them catch will do my best to let them catch their trains for.

The amendment 103 would repeal section 9 of the would repeal section 9 of the Illegal Migration Act. Why the government is leaving themselves the option to use it. Section 3 of any nationality and borders act allows for this location of victims of trafficking for modern slavery protections on grants of bad faith or public order, those are the terms used, including convictions, which could have been as a result of could have been as a result of exploitation.

And noble Lords may recall that the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-Sloss, has, in the debate on this bill, and it's something we have covered in previous bills as well, talked of the inadequate use, if I could put it that way, of section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act. Which deals, but inadequately, with offences which victims of modern slavery are compelled to commit. Section 29, if enforced, would make the disqualification a duty, rather than at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Unless there are compelling circumstances. It is not easy to get these recognised. And it extends the duty to any length or shortness of imprisonment. The IOM has called for its repeal, because of the victims wrongly removed, being re-traffic, or facing retribution in their home countries. something which is all too frequent, I fear. It can be, on conclusive grounds, decisions are awaited. The Minister in the Commons responded to similar points, which is individual circumstances will always be considered, and the CPS has a discretion not to prosecute.

In our view, this is not sufficient protection. I recall the forensic and very trenchant analysis during the passage of the then bill, that the public order exemptions will severely limit the ability to configure perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups. And increase victims vulnerability to further exploitation. Amendment 117 in this group seeks to remove all the sections of the Nationality and Borders Act relating to modern slavery. The Peace One Day forgive me, my Lords, I am trying to edit this as I go.

--... Forgive me, my Lords, I'm trying to edit this as I go. For the rights of victims, under the Council of Europe convention on trafficking human beings, I'm going to come back to that if I may, and the ECHR. The international organisation for migration tells us that by the end of 2023, with the changes, enacted only 53% of reasonable grounds decisions. Made in the first six months of 2023, were positive, compared to 90% in the same period in 2022.

And noble Lords will understand our concern I don't think noble Lords should need reminding that trauma informed approaches must sit at the heart of the National Referral Mechanism, giving potential victims access to appropriate support and psychologically informed environments and that a disqualification from such an environment and support system can't occur in the absence of legal representation or indeed in the face of restrictions and constraints on of restrictions and constraints on it.

Amendment 172 is a new clause about information sharing or rather restricting the sharing of information by public authority which is determining whether someone is a victim of modern slavery in human trafficking, restricting that sharing with other authorities including immigration authorities which might lead to deportation prosecution. We have, well I have talked certain amount about information sharing during today's Committee stage so I won't cover Committee stage so I won't cover that same ground again. Amendment 182 would insert a new clause to provide a victim with a positive conclusive grounds decision, in other words recognition as a victim who would have leave to remain with the opportunity to access support and if I can put it this way, recover and live positive life and be eligible for settlement.

The 2022 act introduced restrictions on the criteria for granting leave to remain for confirmed victims of trafficking. Again skipping notes, supporting victims is important not only for each individual, but it supports that individual in turn to support police investigations and prosecutions, something which quite properly the government is concerned to ensure. Not as if we don't understand that security in every sense, physical and practical essential for recovery. We recognise vulnerability to re-trafficking and I would say that these amendments pick up points made in the modern slavery action plan published in March or May of this year which we very much support.

Support and security must belong enough to be effective. Amendment 205 would require legislation to incorporate the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings into UK law and report on beings into UK law and report on compliance. EC 80 provides -- a T provides it shall issue a renewable residence permit to victims. When the competent authority considers that the stay is necessary owing to their personal situation or considers that the stay is necessary for the purpose of their cooperation with competent authorities in investigation or criminal proceedings.

The Home Office over the years has taken the view that it is possible to assist proceedings from abroad, that is something that I have never accepted and I doubt I have a word accept -- I ever would accept. Victims of these crimes need huge support, needs time not to be in the same country as where the investigation is going on, I cannot be the only member of this House who finds it difficult to conduct meetings online.

That is nothing as compared to the situation. Article 14 two specifically recognises the circumstances of children who are victims and it requires that the resident's permit for child victims when legally necessary shall be issued in accordance with the best interests of the child. Terminology which will be very familiar to noble Lords, and where appropriate renewed under the same conditions. The counter through all this doesn't really do justice to the situation really do justice to the situation and I hope that the organisations victims who are aware of this debate understand that compressing the arguments does not mean that their situation is not fully recognised and that there is huge concern for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 38,
18:36
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
page 31 line 11 leave out 28 and insert 29.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise hopefully relevant -- relatively briefly to talk to this group amendments. -- I rise in the group amendments. -- I rise in the overall issue I strongly support the various provisions in legislation to various provisions in legislation to make sure that victims of modern slavery and trafficking are properly protected, there is however a protected, there is however a balance to strike because the people we want to protect our actual we want to protect our actual victims of modern slavery trafficking.

We have to be very careful about is that we don't create, if you have a blanket exemption for anyone who claims to exemption for anyone who claims to be a victim of modern slavery and trafficking you just create a massive gap in our laws where massive gap in our laws where anybody who is then intercepted ends up claiming to be a victim of modern slavery and trafficking in order to avoid being removed from the avoid being removed from the country. That is to incredibly damaging consequences, one is they damaging consequences, one is they are able to undercut our immigration control, but also they damage public control, but also they damage public support and acceptance of genuine victims of modern slavery trafficking.

We have to have a system that recognises that there are many bad actors out there who will take advantage of every weakness in our legislation. So I don't support the first amendment in this group that seeks to get rid of the ability of the Home Secretary to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in bad faith, the sort people I talked about trying use these provisions where they don't apply to try and avoid our immigration controls, I think it's reasonable Home Secretary is able to do that and I know from my own experience and I have no reason to suspect this is different, the officials in the Home Office to look after this area of policy are expert competent people who do their very best to try make these decisions and I've met victims of modern slavery, had met with people that implemented this legislation when Baroness May was Home Secretary and I was in the Home Office and I have a lot of confidence that they get decisions right.

Not 100% of cases because people are perfect I think we have a good system, we do need to have the power to deal with people who act in bad faith. I also don't think the amendment that repeals 117 that repeals a bunch of sections of the Nationality and Borders Act that actually provide the protections for victims of modern slavery the ability of them to get leave displaying the United Kingdom for periods much up to 16 months to have a recovery. I think there's all very valuable protections to remain so I don't support those amendments.

Just very briefly given the noble Lady Baroness May is not able to be here. Just briefly's board I think the thrust of her amendments amendment 183 which looks at making sure people of modern slavery -- victims of modern slavery and perhaps have committed criminal offences but under dress are not then punished for a second time as a result of having only committed those spent since under durance. -- Duress I think that amendment has a lot of merit in it and certainly if Baroness May was to bring it back at report stage I would certainly very much consider supporting it and if there are any flaws in the ways drafted only weaknesses that will be good if the Minister was able to set those out today or was able to engage with Baroness May and the other places in the people of supporting the other places to deal with those issues so hopefully we can have an agreed position at report stage so with those relatively brief comments mindful of time I will sit down.

time I will sit down.
18:41
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 172 and I genuinely would press Baroness Hamwee to elucidate the meaning behind this because I found it quite confusing. This particular amendment because it seeks to prevent the proper authorities gaining any information about a person and I read the draft very carefully, a suspected victim of slavery or human trafficking. It could be that that status changes and that person was status changes and that person was originally suspected of being a victim but when further enquiry takes place that proves not to be the case..

Therefore I find it odd that under this very very restrictive amendment that would potentially be added to the bill please I'm happy to be disabused if I got it wrong, that person would be speaking to for instance adult social or adult social services, Children's Services but would be prevented on a statutory basis from talking to anyone else on the chancel they may be somewhat down the line it would be a situation where they may may have no charges laid against them at that stage they may not be found to be truly suspected victim of slavery or human trafficking and two specifically rule out customs officials, law enforcement officer, UK authorised person I'm not entirely sure what that is, the government of and your territory outside the United Kingdom seems to be pretty Draconian restrictions.

Perhaps the noble Lady might wish to light nice as to the meaning behind this amendment but for the reasons I set out I don't think it would be appropriate to incorporate it as an amendment to the bill and on that basis I would oppose it. oppose it.
18:43
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I have my doubts about amendment 182 to insert a new clause 48 for victims of human frailty granting leave to remain for up to, for at least 60 months and access to support services and an appointment and eligibility for settlement up to five years. I fear that returning to the points made by -- on these benches by Lord Harper and picked up in the different amendment by Lord Jackson, there is always a doubt about real victims of human trafficking and slavery about which everyone feels the deepest of sympathy and wants to support.

But by creating a system which gives an undue advantage to such people such as in 182 one would I fear increase the perverse incentive to anyone to claim they were victim of human trafficking and slavery and that would create endless additional bureaucratic and other expenses in our legal system and our Home Office arrangements to try and check the mushrooming of claims. I'm not really in favour of this more generous treatment under 182, and I also have certain doubts about amendment to require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to adopt the Council of Europe Convention on action against human trafficking, against trafficking in human beings into UK law, the convention of 2005 partly because we convention of 2005 partly because we do have, we have made progress in UK do have, we have made progress in UK It is a sensible upper stays just at adopting international frameworks, -- It is not sensible at this stage to start adopting international frameworks.

And I think that it over bureaucratised is the system, and as some additional expense, we must make our own laws work where there are genuine claims. are genuine claims.
18:46
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Just very briefly to respond to the points that have been made by my noble friend, Baroness Hamwee. They are in fact quite complex, if you look at the range of matters, which have been discussed. First of all, I would say that, in trying to be comprehensive, you have actually got to touch a lot of corners. As the debate we heard earlier today and the one we heard on Tuesday described, the real problem we are facing here is, first of all, identification and making sure that people who are identified are not punished and then making sure they have a swift process, with the machinery of the NRM, and then in order to move into a better life from that.

And to make that happen, there have to be changes in legislation, to make and bring that together. And of course, that is why this week of amendments are in place. One of the reasons, for what was just referred to as international law, I have to keep saying that it is actually members of this parliamentary vote for these things, to make it happen. But I wasn't a member of the Council of Europe, when that particular protocol and convention was put in place.

But if it has the support of the Eddie kingdom delegation, which is -- The United Kingdom delegation, which is substantial and cross- party, then it is actually something we are contributing to and that is the issue about the international and national frameworks and the laws that we have set ourselves. We are very much part of the machinery which makes them and puts them into place, especially for the Council of Europe, of which I am one of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly.

What I would like to hear from the Minister, in conclusion, is that I understand, you know, the Home Office argues once protections are being abused by people who are They are victims, to avoid deportation order to keep serious offenders in the country who would otherwise be moved. I understand that argument, but I wonder where the evidence is, that there is that sense of widespread abuse. So, perhaps asking the Minister in his summing up, he could tell us whether or not there have been a sufficient number of cases, which would lead us to believe there is abuse of the current system.

And if there is widespread abuse, there must be protections and ways in which the protections and ways in which the government cannot deal with these outliers in where they think that might happen, in the process. But in conclusion, I would say, because we heard on Tuesday from the Noble Baroness May, the situation is not improving, it's getting worse. More adults are confirmed as victims of trafficking. We certainly have to come back to this matter and ensure that we have the right legislative underpinning to make it happen.

underpinning to make it happen.
18:50
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yet again, by rising to speak against the rising to speak against the amendments in this group. My Lords, I shall briefly touch on each amendment in turn, starting with 103, which repeals section 109 set out in the expansionary note. It has a floor, in that it fails to recognise section 63 of the Nationality and Borders at 2022, to which her amendment ultimately pertains, refers both to a person who has claimed to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking, and to a person who is a threat to public order.

Let's be clear about who we are talking about with these amendments, people who have tried to claim that they are trying to use one -- Modern Slavery Act is in bad faith. The close as it sounds would allow the government to remove from the United Kingdom, and ensure that they would not be eligible for indefinite leave to remain as a result of claims made by faith, availability and one slavery protections. My Lords, we honour these benches raise our concerns that those who would seek to exploit loopholes in modern slavery protections at certain length this week, in section 39 of the Modern Slavery Act six to address this by allowing the government to identify bad actors abusing the system, to remove them from the United Kingdom.

My Lords, not to do so would be an insult to all of those who suffer at the hands of slave matters and who should rightly hold a genuine entitlement for protection. Amendment seeks to apply that to those acting in bad faith, or a threat to public order, it is no wonder why this government perhaps has decided in the drafting of the builder keep this provision in force. I do request -- Keep this bill, I do request why the nobility seeks to do this in such a way, and as such, we cannot support the amendment.
18:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Grateful to the noble Lady for the way she has approached the discussion. I hope I can convince a straight away, by saying the government is steadfast in its commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and supporting survivors, that is why we have a debate on Tuesday this week, where I reemphasised that as a whole. I think a should be taken to avoid unintentionally weakening the protections afforded to victims of modern slavery and to public order. And repealing the majority of the modern slavery measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, would do just that.

The act from 2022 did have protections for victims of modern slavery, stemming from the Council of Europe protection, into primary legislation, for the first time, building on the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 these amendment would repeal these. I come from a different perspective, from the Noble Lord Harper and the Noble Baroness Lawlor. But in my view, the measures loss would be the right to recovery period and referral mechanism for staff the circumstances which confirmed victims may be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK, and whether rights and protections can be held on account of public order or in bad faith, in line with article 13 of the Council of Europe prevention for action against trafficking of human beings.

These mention ensure -- These amendments ensure protections from the removal of modern slavery system are available to all the required them for subsection 29 is the slow -- modern slavery measure to be retained, it would, if commenced, commence the public order class modification, to allow for national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis, for disqualification, from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. And there, I share the point of view of His Majesty's official opposition. Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form, so that we can examine the national referral mechanism and agree with partners priorities in long-term reform.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act sets out a range of measures and it is not necessary to replicate that defence elsewhere in legislation. In terms of instructing information shared in respect to modern slavery intervention, in England and Wales, with a statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State, the information provided for that notification enables the UK to fulfil its international and other obligations. The duties notify is discharging adults, by making a referral into the national referral mechanism, for consenting adults, or by completing an anonymous entry on a digital system, whereby the adult does not consent.

This information allows us to provide a better picture of modern slavery and help improve law-enforcement responses. It does not include information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to that information being included. Child victims do not need to consent at all, and if a person is identified as a potential victim of modern's slavery and trafficking, eligible for the period earlier. The restrictions on the information provided would be to the detriment of our obligations. I agree that it is vital that the UK complies with its obligations, and including as a signatory to the Council of Europe convention, the noble Lord mentioned, implementation and compliance with these obligations does not require full framework where we can ensure that the convention continues to be monitored through reporting of the group of experts in action against traffic on human beings also.

And finally, the government is committed to ensure victims can access necessary support for whatever the length of time is that is required. Following a positive conclusive grounds decision, confirmed victims of modern slavery receive support from the modern slavery victim care contract and continue to receive support through the recovery needs assessment process, by the NHS, local authorities and others, giving them support. That specialist support also includes assistance to access the labour market, vocational training, education, and the application support for a national insurance number.

The government does not place an overall time limit on how long a victim can remain in support and following that conclusive grounds decision, victims of modern slavery are considered for a temporary position to stay. I think that is all-important, giving real support for victims of modern slavery. So I hope, I have not mentioned the amendments individually, but collectively in that response, shows the government is committed to its international obligations, wants to support victims, and believes the retention of the measures in at the migration act are vital to do that in a fair and appropriate way and I would act the noble Lady to withdraw the amendments.
18:57
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, does not disappoint me, because these are government provisions, and so, of course, I would have expected him to speak in support of them. I think my speech actually was accurate, as to the content of the amendment he referred to. Even though, and it was referred to. Even though, and it was full of than the -- And it was more full than the explanatory statement. We start with the point of view, as between us and the Conservative between us and the Conservative noble Lords.

Who do seem still to demonstrate a culture of disbelief as to whether people who claim they were victims of Modern Slavery, whether one starts, whether one gives them come if you like, the benefit of the doubt, as a starting point. Or disbelieves them. Because claiming, using terms like real victims, discounts the fact there is an NRM procedure, with the reasonable grounds, conclusive grounds arrangements, that Vanessa has referred to. We do indeed have section 45, which provides a defence, in certain circumstances, but only regarding some offences and as I said, it is inadequate.

I'm not going to go back over the information she arguments, because of the time, and because, well, I have addressed them today. But secure reporting is understood to be very important, including by the independent current and previous independent antislavery commissioner, who said we need to be able to give victims the confidence that if they do come forward, perpetrators will be held to account and will continue to receive the support they need, and the current director of labour market enforcement, who says there needs to be an expectation, the part of workers, that if they go to an authority to demonstrate they are being exploited, that will not prejudice their right to be in this country.

As regards ECAT, not over bureaucratic, in our view, and we would, obviously by definition, I suppose, prefer to see it in legislation rather than relying on guidance and a combination of other measures, to which the Minister has measures, to which the Minister has I'm intrigued by his argument that section 29 should be retained in order that the NRM can be examined, I think that was what he said. That's what I wrote down I will have a look in Hansard because I don't quite understand how it is necessary to keep the section on the statute book in order to examine the NRM but May be for another day.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. I beg to move the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is the House be resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have "Not content". The "Contents" have I beg to move the House do now adjourn. adjourn.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page