Lords Chamber

Wednesday 3rd September 2025

(began 3 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:50
15:51
15:53
15:54
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before the formal third reading of the bill, I will make a brief statement on the devolution status of the bill. During its development in Parliamentary passage the Minister for Employment rights competition has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement tween officials. As a result I can confirm that legislative consent motion's have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament have also agreed and LCM which covers the majority of the bill's provisions. However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the Social Care Negotiating Bodies table in my name at report stage and accepted by your Lordship's House also engage the consent process. Owing to the day these amendments were tabled in the Scottish Parliament summer recess, it's not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess and noting it has the support of the Scottish government, we are hopeful the process around the supplementary LCM will progressively.

More broadly ungrateful to ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved governments for the remainder of the bill's passage including as we look ahead to its implementation the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is these -- this will be read a time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. and Klaus Hunt and 62, Amendment Lord Burns.
15:56
15:56
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
for tabling this amendment which I acknowledge is a simple tidying up one, following changes made to the bill at report stage. As I say it's a tidying up amendment and therefore we accepted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It's been a privilege to now pass. It's been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. This bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in tide on the damaging trend of in work poverty.

It will benefit millions of people across the country and this is physically the case for those in insecure and low paid employment. Taking just one paid employment. Taking just one example, over 2 million people on zero hours contracts could benefit from the rights to guaranteed hours from the rights to guaranteed hours and the right to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade studies it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for a long-term sustainable and secure economic growth.

Throughout the Bill's second reading, 11 days of committee and four days of report, noble Lords from across your Lordship's House have carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have ended up agreeing on every issue I believe we do agree on the importance of the bill, as well as the need to improve workers rights and level the playing field for good employers. I'm therefore grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the chamber and would like to thank all noble Lords that I and make ministerial colleagues are spoken to for their time and wisdom.

The mention every member of your Lordship's House that I've engaged with risks taking almost as long as the committee stage did. And so while I will refrain from doing that I would like to put on record my particular thanks to a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the dedicated support from the frontbench. Over the course of the Bill's passage we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders including noble Lords and external bodies.

My noble friends have been generous with their time and their wisdom and I/O them a great debt. Similarly must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Baroness Smith of Mills, and Baroness Merron all of whom are presented from the Dispatch Box. This represents a whole government approach to bringing about a long overdue improvement to workers rights. It's been a pleasure debating the bill's many clauses with noble Lords, noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Noel Hunt of Wirral.

Who have continuously made the case under half of the Official Opposition. Likewise the noble Lord Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and the noble Baroness Baroness Kramer who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes in relation to non- disclosure agreements where I was delighted to see the amendment I brought forward at report being accepted to introduce a world leading framework on MDA productions. I would like to say how gratifying it is to seek the noble Lord Lord Fox back in his place and I'm sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery good health.

I should also pay particular contributions to the noble Lord Lord Goodlad, whilst of course Lord Fox's wisdom could not be replaced, Lord Goddard was a worthy and often entertaining substitute for that. I'm grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan, Baroness O'Grady and Baroness Lister for the valued contributions in relation to seafarers bereavement league, trade unions and parental leaf. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the officials of public servants who have provided dedicated support throughout, including not only those in my department and the whips office but across government, and in the public sector.

In particular I would like to thank my private office and the bill and policy teams. Noble Lords had met with them will be as impressed as I am with the professionalism and knowledge. Finally I end by acknowledging and often quite yet essential work of house staff. This includes the clerks, the doorkeepers, dining staff, police, cleaners and countless others. This House Passat lady denied on many occasions, which is only possible because of these workers and those keeping us safe and cleaning up after us.

I'm sure that they will have watched the debate with interest and I hope that they will find their reward for their hard work and the renewed workplace rights that they will workplace rights that they will As we send this bill to the other place we can await their amendments. I'm sure we are all eager for a swift consideration to ensure the sooner people can access these rights the better. In the meantime, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. I'm conscious this is Third
16:02
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm conscious this is Third Reading and I fully support the bill, but I wanted to take this last opportunity to make a brief opportunity to make a brief intervention to ask for glitter -- greater clarification in relation to clause 40. It is an issue I raised a Committee stage. First I want to thank my noble from the Minister for helpful response at committee and in the subsequent letter she wrote. I know she shares an interest in ensuring the bill does not impose undue burdens on the HEE sector given the key role played by universities in the industrial strategy.

Universities wholeheartedly support the enactment of the bill and will be working to ensure fair employment practises are maintain and strengthen. As autonomous institutions, universities, unlike other organisations in the public sphere, will be requested to absorb the additional cost that this legislation imposes. In advance of the bill becoming law and ahead of the consultation process, I would like to seek further clarity and assurances on behalf of the higher education sector on three specific issues. First, in her letter, my noble friend indicated that the code would specify to which bodies and value of procurement activities clause 30 would apply.

It is possible that the procurement of universities are exempted due to their nature and value. As my noble friend able to elaborate further on this? And allay any outstanding concerns on the lead up to the consultation process. Second, it is still not clear whether pensions will also be subject to the no less favourable terms, which could result in considerable additional burdens for institutions where there are legacy arrangements in place. Third, there is uncertainty over whether the provisions in clause 30 would be retrospectively applied.

Decisions on both of these areas can make a material difference to the extent of financial impact experienced by the higher education sector. I recognise that these are likely to be significant subjects of the consultation, but if my noble friend is able to provide any reassurances in advance of this process, that would be very much welcome. The sector is so critical in delivering the skills needed for the UK's successful future and the hopes and aspirations of communities across the UK.
16:05
16:06
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to also begin by expressing my gratitude to noble lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also wish to thank the ministers for the briefings in the meetings and for the extensive correspondence by letter. The data provided during the course of these proceedings. I would also like to thank the bill team in the ministers private offices.

Further I would like to place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for their diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships House, as the noble Lady the Minister said, have enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism will stop and I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these benches who have been fantastic throughout. We take a slightly different view as to this bill, we think it is a terrible bill.

It's terrible for workers, it's terrible for businesses, particularly small businesses, and it is terrible for the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come unemployment has risen every single month under this government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach five% and that is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip, that is a trend.

As a direct result of misguided economic choices and if this bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further. The Chancellor has deepened the difficulty of long-term borrowing costs have reached their highest level since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent and once along the provisions of this bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster. The bill itself imposes nothing new but new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by peninsula, the UK's largest HR and employment law consultancy...

Will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims and inevitability under these provisions was so-called day one writes in the ill thought out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the governments own impact assessment confirms those risks. The noble Lord confirmed by letter that the government itself is funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days. Yet the backlog already exceeds 15,000 cases. It doesn't take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and 1/2 simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation.

Indeed the governments own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal right will increase claims by around 15%. So while I commend the government's actions as it regards recruiting of new judges, the bill still adds more pressure into a system already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. Lord Young of Acton tells me to free speech union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.

One cannot help but observe that the bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the government's approach in their handling of the junior doctors dispute, but by also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as two%, the government is preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no business -- experience in dealing with small unions completely unprepared.

I think we should be mindful of a darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 80s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose for reasons of conscience or necessity to cross the picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracisation. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It's precisely that environment which this bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it.

One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own active scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here. At the same time, the governments own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity. Yet while ministers fail to acknowledge that the poor persecuted these -- activities in the... Soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the government seeks to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation and that will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.

The bill also takes a regressive step with regards to political funds. The government proposes that contributions to a union's political fund should once again be made on an opt out basis rather than an opt in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the Certification Officer requires unions to disclose payments above a threshold of 2,000 pounds. Many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, aren't recorded in their internal cows -- are recorded.

It should be a matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why then, as described by the Minister as a notable administrative requirement. As is to be the standard disclosure for other organisations in the future. References have been made to practises prior to 2016 when opacity prevailed, yet rather than strengthening transparency, the government seems intent on concealment. That stands in stark contrast to what's applied to companies which must provide full disclosure of political donations.

Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the government is serious about transparency, it should be insisting on openness, not enabling the rivers. -- The reverse. An organisation called the General Federation of trade unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, session on what is described as Employment Rights Bill two.

Some might say that such a bill would administer the coup de grace after the firing squad of this bill. It also features a session including -- entitled Viva LaSala Deraa dad, stand with Latin America against Trump. I laughed when I read that, it's not serious politics, it is infantile and pathetic. If they truly wish to offer international lessons, they might examine the havoc that their counterparts have wreaked upon Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity is too often with shared quality collapsing currencies and vanishing investment.

We are focused on the rights of British businesses and their employees in the TUC should do the same. I would also like to highlight clause 30 concerning the right to be a company

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which was tabled by Lord Palmer. The noble Lord Sharpe has reminded me what I've been missing
16:14
16:15
16:16
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
I'm properly not going to find a lot of favour with what I'm about to say. I will start off by reminding the House that I'm the honorary president of the pilots union, union that does not go on strike, does not regard militant industrial action as being an achievement, indeed, a dispute that leads to a lot of work for our employees is a failure, not a success. I would also like to remind the House that 30% of trade union members vote for the Conservative Party.

Now, people might wish to say that there is something wrong with them. I don't think there is. The matter is that there is very little politics in trade unionism. I have sat through trade unionism. I have sat through several years of the executive of the organisation, we don't discuss politics. Occasionally things will, we have to comply with some relation or the other and there may be a discussion. But the discussion is probably about the cost of complying, and one of the things I have noticed is the huge growth in legal fees that the union is dishing out.

We are the nearest, the legal profession has got to recruiting agency. We always seem to be a lot of money to get us around the law. And I'm not aware our union has ever broken the law. I hope we will move forward and regard this bill as a starting point of a consensual approach to industrial relations. Because we are all basically in the same side. I mentioned that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. In my particular union, the pilot union, it's over 50%.

And they are just not really impressed with this punch and Judy approach to trade union legislation which has become so much, what is happening in recent years. So I appeal to all of the House, government and the opposition, to work together in a consensual basis for trade unionism. I look across and icy my friend Brendan Barber, who did enormously good work at ACAS, and that is the sort of organisation that we need. But attempts to smooth out the problems that we have in industry, because at the end of the day, yes I'm going to wind up, at the end of the day, our employers want a wage, and our employers want a successful business.

We've had nice that there should help to. I certainly hope it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. And I wish the bill well. We have certainly improved this
16:20
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have certainly improved this bill during its passage but it bill during its passage but it remains very bad bill. It's bad for business, which means it's bad for the economy, and it's just terrible for people who want jobs. It's also a dreadful time to be making such significant changes. The economy is stressed. The government has failed to time inflation and we now have the highest rate in the G7. Speculation abounds about how big the blackhole is in the Chancellor's budget preparations and bond markets can see our economy is in trouble and they have heightened gilt yields to levels not seen since 1998 full stops telling is on the slide.

It feels like the 1970s all over again. Businesses are still reeling from the impact of the national insurance increases, on top of the significant increases in minimum wage release. This is orally taking its tail. Already. The valleys Ocean foundation have said that they reckon that the payment rate will having might have increased to 5% this month. Almost all the employment data are negative. Payroll numbers are down, job vacancies down, the PMI employment index, down, economic activity, op. Against this background creating new employment rights going back to 1960s trade union legislation is not far short of suicidal for the economy.

The government say this bill will cost £5 billion, adding to employment costs, and most of that wilful the Assembly sector. -- Most of that wilful on the Assembly sector. The bigger problem is that the bill will work against economic growth is said of creation, we will have more job destruction. My Lords, any other place the government has an opportunity to accept that modest changes that your Lordship's House has made to this bill. These changes are moderate and they will not remove all of the bill's harmful effects but I hope that the government at least take this opportunity to modify the impact of this bill.
16:22
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I think we have spent 13 days in this chamber's good nursing this critical bill so I do think the ministers on the front bench for the stamina and perseverance. This bill has tested the patience of noble Lords from all sides of this House so I will not test your patience further by going over the same arguments that we heard during committee and report, very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and pretty much the whole of the private sector.

They are asking in light of this bill how committed the government really is to delivering on its overriding number one mission, of real sustainable economic growth. And how this bill would impact on the two crucial ingredients on growth, job creation and as we have heard, productivity. In terms of job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10- year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years and this bill that is set to accelerate that downward trend.

Secondly, the need for greater productivity across our 30 million workforce, for employers, are currently paying an average 5% annual wage increases for close to 0 productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds on workers pockets. But I'm afraid it's as illusory as it is inflationary and will only contribute to ever widening black holes. This bill will as the government admits push up even further cost of employment, and damage the risk would equations behind recruitment, promotion and employers ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews.

A that is bad news for productivity and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
16:25
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, can I respond to my noble friend Baroness Warwick about the concerns of university UK. Given this stage of the parliamentary passage of the Employment Rights Bill's reached and the fact the House has agreed to close 36 should stand part of the bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as noble friend knows, I have written to her on this whole issue and the letter is available for all members to read. I would say to her that we do fully recognise the need not to impose disappointed burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and to this end we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two tier code.

The consultation will consider the extent to which the public authorities, including higher education provisions, providers are required to follow its provisions. While I can't comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applied to Higher Education Bill of. Secondly can I thank the noble Lord Lord Goddard for his kind comments. And I think it's fair to say we have enjoyed working with him.

I'm sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had up until this point had very courteous discussions around all of this. And the fact that there are relatively few issues that are now remaining between us I think is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue and I hope that because there are so few areas continuing disagreement that we can reach a conclusion on this bill delicately.

I don't want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. I have to say listening to this debate this afternoon is a miracle that we have only got 10 also issues that are still outstanding because it feels like we're back at square one but I do feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions. I would just say to noble Lords that when we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights which was way out of date and these are the issues that we have been and are continuing to work to address.

We are doing it in all sorts of ways, if you look at our small business strategy that we lost over the summer, the Industrial Strategy, the trade strategy, all of that is designed to make the UK a place that can do, to do business with an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future. Just in terms of the course I have been provoked on this in terms of the state of the economy, in the three months to June the GDP grew by 0.5% meaning punitive growth has already exceeded the OBR forecast.

Since the start of Parliament 380,000 also been added, Britain has become the most active place to invest in the world, joint top with India, following it still with the US. The FTSE 100 index rushed to the 9,000 point mark this July, sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at the fastest rate since the last election, according to research in NatWest and confidence amongst UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment according to the Lord's business barometer.

I could go on. We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and in that context we are positive about the jobs that will be provided and they will be good jobs and they will be jobs where people feel that they have a stake in the employment and feel they have a positive future. I'm sorry we ended up on that note and I'm sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference but in the meantime I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and
16:29
None Portrait Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill –committee stage (day 4) - part one
-

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Lord Hanson of Flint.
16:30
16:30
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 104 in my name. And in the name of my in my name. And in the name of my noble friend Lord Cashman. In so doing also I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Dobbs who in my absence moved and spoke to amendments in my name. He did so with characteristic thoughtfulness, eloquence and I'm pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude and pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude to the noble Lord Lord Cashman who is willing to move and This amendment does something essentially very simple.

In the sense of the bill before you Lordships House in the legislation that it relates to. I hope the committee will bear with me. It requires a complicated explanation in some ways and I will do my best to try not to complement -- complicated anymore. Essentially it seeks to repeal section 59 of Illegal Migration Act and in so doing remove seven anomalies I will come to. Section 59 extends the current inadmissibility process for certain asylum claims and other human rights claims from what was initially, broadly, those who came from the EEA states were one of two other European states or countries that were deemed safe.

The mechanism for this in section 59 is a list of safe states which are countries from which an asylum or human rights claim must be declared inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply. That list can be added to and the list that was originally drafted and the clause was increased to and the clause was increased to include both India and Georgia. By regulations that were laid on 8 November 2023. If I could detain your lordships committee -- I could detain your lordships committee for quite a time explaining what these countries were in and respect for human rights on that day, but I will read this short in telling the committee what is the source of this information, noble lords can find and read it for themselves.

What I intend to do is read from the United States 2022 country report on human rights practises in Georgia, which included a statement which I will read in short. Significant human rights issues included credible reports of torture or inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. Arrests or incarcerations, serious problems with the independence of the judiciary, along with investigations and prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated. Arbitrary or unlawful invasion of privacy, serious expression in media.

I will not read the rest of it. In the case of India, the first three lines of the United States 2022 country report practises in India included the following, significant human rights issues included credible reports of unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents. Torture of cruel or inhuman degrading treatment by police and officials. Harsh and life- threatening conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, political prisoners or detainees, arbitrary or unlawful in privacy. I will stop there.

There are many other lines that come with this, but despite this information and other information, the government then thought that these two countries thought that these two countries were candidates for states and would therefore be places from which certain asylum or human rights claims would be declared inadmissible. It seems to be this amendment to repeal to this I believe is in harmony with the animating spirit of this legislation. In repealing section 59 and in doing so not only it terminates this proposition in section 59 that you can declare states to be safe in this way despite the evidence, it will remove certain anomalies I will come to.

It does privately extend -- presently extend other human rights claims. The extension between human rights claims and claim to asylum is critical but section 59 conflates them. Unlike asylum claims, many human rights claims are founded not on assessment of the country safety, but individuals connection with this country, the family ties, the relationships. You risk imposing what amounts in an anomalous fashion to a blanket ban in consideration of human rights for the country because they are deemed to be safe when it's irrelevant to the nature of the claim.

Section 59 deprives individuals of a right to appeal as these claims because they are disregarded from the outset, unconsidered rather than refused and therefore there is no right to appeal. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, but what might be considered exceptional circumstances are defined in the legislation in a nonexhaustive way with narrow examples such as human rights obligations under the ECHR, suspension from the EU by country itself. They are inapplicable to states such as India, leaving us with legal uncertainty over and above all the other problems that are with this process.

Noble lords will no exceptional circumstances have been narrowly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the past, with compelling reasons to believe that there is a clear risk but the individual be liable to persecution in the country of origin. This test is incorrect for private and family life claims. Again, result of the conflation of human rights and asylum claim. Returning to the list of safe countries, I believe this involves the other place and you Lordships House being asked to do something it is ill-equipped to do.

A list of safe states in section 59 of the illegal migration act may be altered by the government, but I for one would feel myself placed in a bad situation when asked about whether a member of a religious minority could be considered safe and parts of India. Whether a young boy or girl is safe in India given to the very high instance of FGM in that community or whether a gay man in Georgia can be considered as residing in a state country.

To reach an informed judgment in these issues would require something I don't claim to possess.... In the case of Georgia drew my attention to a case of a man who mere months before Georgia was declared safe was granted refugee status in the UK. What happened to him after coming out as gay was he was physically attacked by his own family members, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses and had an exorcism performed on him at his local church.

His family was detected with the police and Georgia do not get either of them. But the United Kingdom did, despite his legislation being in power the time. Considering this case and others like it, lack of an obligation to keep a list of safe countries under review is troubling and above all the criticisms I have. You Lordships House needs no reminder of what accompanied the decision to legislate this to the absolute and perpetual safety of the country of Rwanda.

I worry the absence of a reviewing mechanism for this list threatens to put us in a similarly insidious position. It is not been fully commenced, but given the home office is granted asylum or humans rights protections to hundreds of people from the countries in the lists in recent years, even a shadow of the section 59 provision is damaging. If commenced, these individuals will have no way to challenge a decision wrongfully to deport them. Either the Home Office have spin granting asylum and human rights claims been acting out of superfluity of compassion of these countries that they are in all circumstances safe is wrong.

It's my belief that section 59 of Illegal Migration Act's ill-conceived, ties the hands of the Home Secretary under this provision must declare asylum and human rights claims in these countries as inadmissible save the largely undefined exceptional circumstances are detected and it fully risks involving us going forward under a new government and multiple breaches of our obligations to international law. I urge the committee to support and I begged to move. -- I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member proposed, page 38, leave out 58 and insert 59. -- Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed. Arise to support amendment 104
16:41
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
and I am proud to follow my noble friend for the passionate and eloquent way he introduces amendment. He spoke passionately and deeply about the young man Noah and the experience he had in Georgia. Before I speak further in support of this amendment, to which I vetted my name, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton who died on 6 May this year. And with whom I had the privilege to work alongside on immigration and asylum legislation in your Lordships House.

He was always seeking to bring justice and fairness where there was none, to give a Vos -- voice to the voiceless. His contributions will be greatly missed. Having listened previously to interventions on this bill, it is clear to me and to the media stigmatisation of migrants, that this vital work of bringing justice and fairness to the system must go on. I support amendment 104 which has been put to your Lordships House so eloquently by my noble friend and I also welcome and support amendment 203E.

These amendments bring us back to addressing the primary reasons of those seeking asylum. It is vital that each case is processed solely on its merits and not on the presumption of safety of the country from which the person has fled. Despite the issue of exceptional circumstances, to which my noble friend has already referred. Lord Brown has put the case exhaustively and therefore there is very little for me to add. I believe this amendment to be essential because section 59, once fully commenced, will make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals introduced by the Nationality and introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

This could result in violations of the UK's international human rights obligations and I am grateful to the briefings that I've received, particularly from the Refugee Council. Section 59 of Illegal Migration Act extends the current general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals of EU member states to cover human rights claims and to cover nationals of other countries deemed to be safe. Despite concerns expressed about the safety of those three states, namely India, Albania and Georgia.

There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. Concerns have been raised by numerous organisations, protection issues and Albania, India and Georgia. Including those facing women and girls, victims of trafficking and minorities including certain religious groups and LGBTQ+ people. In relation to the latter, we must recall and recognise the Supreme Court judgment of 2010, Hg Rand and HT Cameroon versus the Home Secretary.

Particularly in relation to the lived experiences of such individuals seeking asylum. Finally, there is, I believe, a fundamental issue with legislating for so-called member safe states. While the list of safe states in section 59 of Illegal Migration Act may be altered by the executive through affirmative regulations, members of this House have expressed concern time and time again and particularly throughout the passage of the safety of Rwanda act 2024 that we are institutionally ill-equipped to deal decisively and to determine the safety of a state.

We have also expressed in your Lordships House concerns that we have been repeatedly asked to rubberstamp such decisions of the government of the day. It is our contention that the safety of the state must be designated by a review on the basis of reliable, objective information from a range of sources and regularly updated and published. I urge the government to consider and reflect widely on this sensible and notable amendment and to work with us and with the noble Lord, with us and with the noble Lord,
16:46
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
with us and with the noble Lord, I'm certainly not seeking to take issue with the noble Lord Lord issue with the noble Lord Lord Brown. I appreciate we are in very topical territory, and I confess topical territory, and I confess that I have found it quite difficult to know how to approach this bill to know how to approach this bill following the statement on Monday, following the statement on Monday, because there is a lot to come, and I know the Minister was her last, we will have the opportunity to debate will have the opportunity to debate it but of course we don't have that much detail, and what we are asked much detail, and what we are asked to consider is a bill written before that statement.

But we will have that statement. But we will have opportunities to consider the Home opportunities to consider the Home Office's proposals. And today's debate will give the Minister a flavour, if he needs it, because I don't think he will be surprised by don't think he will be surprised by it very much of what is to come by way of our responses. I can too, and grateful to the various organisations which briefed us on section 59. They have clearly spelled-out the distinction between asylum and human rights claims, and as they say, the latter, human rights claims, in many cases have nothing to do with the country's general safety or perceived safety.

They are about someone's connections to this country, their dependency and family ties here, as I said, this is topical. Made by people seeking lawfully to enter or remain with their UK-based family. Among other things, this means, because there's no right of appeal, the course claims are not refused, they are just not considered. Of course, and it is of course, to me, as the noble Lord Lord Cashman has said, a country may be safe generally but not to particular groups or sections of the community and the Supreme Court has recognised that a serious risk of persecution can exist as a general feature of life which applies to a recognisable section of the community.

This amendment takes us back to the 2002 act which is what section 59 amends, that act allows for exceptional circumstances, and what they may include is the subject of my The new 85, A, that would provide that they include where the claimant is at substantial risk of significant personal harm, either as a member of a minority group or as an individual. The amendment also would omit Albania, Georgia and India from the list of those countries which are automatically safe, which I put in 'so, for everyone -- which I put in inverted commas.

Noah has been example and he was my example for Georgia. Where there is a lack of effective state protection for LGBTQIA plus people in the face of the considerable violence. To add to what has been said, he said no one can know you are gay, if you are gay you have two options, hospital or exorcism. This man was attacked by his own family, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses, and subjected to exorcism. The Home Office country note for India refers to gender-based violence, with women and girls in Ruble areas or from certain castes and tribes, especially vulnerable.

-- Rural areas. Institutional prejudices meaning violence against Muslims, Christians and again certain castes and tribes, going unpunished, into the country note describes the active involvement of the police. In Albania, trafficking is rife. In the top three nationalities, should we call on the top of the bottom three, of people referred into that national referral mechanism, recognised to be victims of trafficking, Albania is one of those three, whether you regarded at the top of the bottom. It is internationally recognised that domestic and international trafficking, including trafficking to the UK, is rife.

And the families of victims themselves are threatened. I have been involved with the case of a young, well he was a young man when he came, his application has not been determined yet, but the threat to his family has been a major factor in his response to what has affected his life. Sexual and domestic violence is widespread in Albania. So wherever we are going in legislative terms, with this, we have to agonise the situation that noble Lords have already described.
16:52
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to address amendment to hundred and three, J, and I will declare my interest as a barrister practising in public law and in the immigration space. As noble Lords will have noticed, the amendment to hundred and three, J, doesn't sit happily with the other amendments in this group. It is not directly about the inadmissibility of an asylum claim. But it is on a very important point. The Refugee Convention of 1951 says that if an asylum seeker has entered the country illegally, he is not to be punished or penalised for doing so, provided he came directly from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened by persecution.

Specifically, the 1951 Convention says, the contracting States shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of article 1, that is the persecution provision in the convention, enter or a present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry and presence. As Professor Jonathan Haidt, the professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at Oxford, and I pointed out in our paper published in 2020 by this exchange, entitled immigration, Strasbourg and initial overreach, the drafting of proper meaning of article 31.1 of the refugee were compellingly expanded by the noble Lords Lord Wood of else very and Lord Marks.

Dissenting in the case of Ashour against the Crown, 2008, UK House of Lords, 31. In doing so, they demonstrated the error of the living instrument interpretation, advanced by the majority, in that case and by the divisional Court in the case of the crowd at Oxbridge Magistrate's Court, ex parte demic, 2001, Queens bench, 667. The erroneous but raining interpretation is predicated on that motion, plainly rejected by the draughtsmen of article 31 of the Refugee Convention. But refugees passing through safe country A en passing through safe country A en route to safe country B and/or C or DoE, should have the option to choose to seek asylum in B, C, or D, or a.

This is plainly wrong. It's plainly not what was intended by that state bodies when they signed the Refugee Convention in 1951. It is time that we corrected the law in this regard. Amendment 203, J, together with amendment 203, I, to be debated in a later group, restores the proper meaning of coming directly. And in doing so, it provides a solution to the nightmare of the dangerous channel crossings and uncontrolled entry. Refugee Convention purposefully distinguishes between those who are directly from a country where they are in danger and those who do not and there is no immunity from immigration law for those not coming directly.

This was entirely intentional. This amendment aims to vindicate the distinction and 6 to bring an end to the practice of widening the Refugee Convention beyond the terms the United Kingdom and the other states agreed. Let's look at the terms of the amendment to hundred and three, J. The amendment works like this: Secretary of State has a duty to refuse a claim for asylum. If a person meets the conditions set out. The first condition you will see at subclause to is that they have entered, they require lead into the United Kingdom and they have done so without such leave, whether illegally or otherwise.

And the second condition at subclause three is that in entering or arriving, as mentioned in subsection number two, that the person did not come directly to that UK country in which the person's life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. But the words taken from the convention. Subclause letter for four clarity specifies for the purposes of subsection 3, a person is not to be taken as having come directly to the United Kingdom from country in which the life and liberty are threatened as mentioned liberty are threatened as mentioned in the subsection if incoming from such a country they passed through all stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.

In paragraph 5, to make it absolutely crystal-clear, for the removal of doubt, but without limitation, for the purposes of subsection 3, a person has passed through all stopped another country outside the UK if they depart in a boat, vessel, or aircraft from France, or any other European postal stage. If this provision were enforced, would you risk your life in the channel in a small boat if you knew that you asylum claim would be bound to be refused? You would not suggest.

This amendment to use the slogan so favoured by the prime minister, this amendment would smash the gangs by destroying the business model. And it does so remaining a member of the Refugee Convention. Unlike the timid tinkering around the edges, we see in almost all of this rather performative bill, this amendment proposes a real beneficial solution and the Home Office should grab this amendment with both hands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support Lady Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, E and declare my interest as a vice president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe and chair of human rights liver chair of human rights liver international and I want to be fully just mention something that has happened this afternoon in Georgia. happened this afternoon in Georgia. Today, somebody who was imprisoned Today, somebody who was imprisoned by the Georgian Dream on trumped up by the Georgian Dream on trumped up drug cases and imprisoned has finally been freed.

Astonishingly after the regime admitted in court planting drugs on him at a protest.
16:59
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This is the third such case to have come in recent weeks. Many, many others, thousands of others, remain in prison and over the last four months, leaders and senior activists, were told by the regime they had to go into Parliament and kowtow to the new regime, immediately imprisoned after that, and that became a contempt of Parliament and some of them have got sentences of 7 to 15 years. These are the high-profile people hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets every night, some of them are finding that like this man they are ending up in prison that strictly no roots.

Georgia is not a safe place. I support my noble friend's amendment for this. During the passage of the safety of Rhondda two act, we repeatedly said Rhondda was not safe and that continues. The government has imprisoned macro. government has imprisoned macro. She has been nominated for prizes, she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison and members of her party the same, many have tried to escape and seek asylum elsewhere for their safety.

Rwanda was not then and is not now say. I'm really pleased to see that at least we are now discussing that. These amendments are important and will recount to another group later today, I'm going to raise the issue about how appropriate it is to have a list in a regulation when things can move as fast as they have happened in Georgia recently. And I think that that is worth exploring, I will leave that until we get to
17:01
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to strongly and emphatically support the amendment put forward, amendment 203J, the new clause after the close 48 moved so ably by my Noble Friend, Lord Murray. And I think it is very important at this juncture we put some context into what this is about because it is a very fast-moving debate about involvement with the refugee Convention in 1931 and our obligations therein and also I think the convention on human rights and the Noble Lord the Minister will know these issues have been debated recently by his Noble Friends including the Noble Lord and the former Home Secretary and even the esteemed members, other esteemed members of the House.

But we are not here necessarily to talk about the application or delegation from the ECHR, although I will push into potentially updating the lordships house on progress made in the view of article 8 of the convention which has been Government undertaking for several months. The fact of the matter is we do have a crisis and this particular amendment seeks to address indeed the kernel of the rationale of this is the crisis we have on the crossings.

Small boat crossings are costing us £5.6 million per day in terms of accommodation in hotels for asylum seekers. That is the equivalent of 73,000 visits to accident and emergency by others everyday. The National Audit Office tells us that in this Parliament across the country £15 billion we have had 180,000 individual crossing since 2018 and this year alone as of yesterday, 28,000 arrivals. The point being this is an existential emergency in terms of the protection of our bodies and therefore we do need to look at different ways of approaching the situation.

And on that basis I think the Minister should look very carefully because it is not about withdrawing from the convention but it is about a very robust interpretation of the legal obligations that we have specifically under section 31 of the convention. And I will not try the patience of the House by repeating the specific wording of that convention which I would suggest is being misinterpreted quite often by some members of the judiciary and others and, of course, some charity groups that have a vested interest in this area.

And my Noble Friend is quite right to talk about the reach of the concept that has developed since the 1970s of the living instrument doctrine which has informed decisions of the European Court of human rights in this particular area. And I accept the Government is in a difficult position at the moment because we were the first party to look at the regulations /tool 13 and will now we are waiting for the decision and the new asylum and management regulation to 2024 which will come into full effect in June, 2026.

I think this is a question of fairness because if you go to the writer and the asylum will see to be naturalised as a British citizen to get indefinite leave to remain you are, as you know from the remarks of the Home Secretary earlier this week the subject to some pretty significant restrictions in terms of who you can bring in, but your salary or pay should be and your access to public funds. And that is, perhaps, as it should be, but if you arrived by a small boat and you have no such restrictions you are developing them in a hotel and you are subject to limited checks in terms of security and you are, perhaps, going to eventually be reunited with family members will access NHS services, local authority and housing associations.

There is the issue of the disproportionality and unfairness between those two groups and I do think that the important thing we need to remember is a proposal put by might Noble Friend Lord Murray addressing this issue in a way that it would not cause legal chaos, but most importantly it would act as a very clear and demonstrable deterrent for the people traffickers and those seeking to arrive by illegal and regular means across the channel and I do think that Government has a good opportunity as my Noble Friend says to grasp it with both hands.

Can I just mention another issue which is that UK European African transfer scheme which was sealed by the treaty between the United Kingdom and France in May. It is very interesting that the Home Secretary wrote to committee, the European Affairs Committee on 7 August to indicate that section 20 of the constitutional reform and governance act 2010 was being this applied and the Government had invoked section 22 one to prevent proper scrutiny and oversight of the treaty as per the legislation, i.e.

21 days proper scrutiny. Now, that very well be an operational issue which was necessary at the time, but it goes to the heart of the inability of The Other Place and here, that one in one out treaty and I very much value the Minister's comments where we have had a chance to properly look at that treaty, the effects of that treaty and our partners in France. And with that specific point in mind I do think that we have an opportunity to properly consider the amendment.

The Government is in a pickle on this. It is flailing around for some gimmicks in order to convince the public that they have convince the public that they have got a grip on the small boat crossings which they do not have. This is a very real opportunity for them to seize the opportunity and to seize a way of reducing the pull factor of small boat crossings, and on that basis I very strongly supported and I hope the Minister at least with that response in kind to what is an attempt to ameliorate the national emergency.
17:09
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendments 104 and 203. And don't Noble Lord Jackson joined in inverting the Noble Lord the Minster to consider very carefully the language in the name of Lord Murray. And a member of the court in the decision to which the Lord Cashman referred, and provides a very good example of problem we are facing when looking at these amendments. The problem with the court is that individual cases come to us and you have to consider them one by one, whereas as legislators we can take a broader view and cover the whole round and intercept problems that none would come back to the court one by one to be dealt with.

And I think that the case, the Georgian case is a very good example of a situation where if it came before the Supreme Court now the protection which the court offered in the case of the Noble Lord would be available as well to allow that person to be extradited in light of that conduct would be contrary to human rights. So I think there is a lot of force in those two amendments on the ground that the intercept and it is best dealt with now.

Coming to the Noble Lord Marie, he referred to a case in the Supreme Court and I have no recollection of that case myself but correct me if I was wrong and I think I was not party to this and therefore it was not that charity but if the minority had the Noble Lord Roger is a member of it I would think it would carry great deal of weight and I have to confess that for quite some time I have felt that the point that the Noble Lord is making had a lot of false behind it.

I would need to look again more carefully to see what my final decision would be, but we have said enough to justify logic since position that the Government should look at it very carefully because the advantages of giving the region are very obvious. But I think, I do not think it would really damage our reputation because it would depend on the wording and interpretation of the wording not to find the convention, not withdrawing the convention, but giving effect to it.

And that, I think, is the point that the Noble Lord Marie makes an think there is a lot of false around it.
17:11
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
I have also been tempted to speak to the Noble Lord Marie is, I think I would not restrict myself to I would not restrict myself to amendments by the Noble Lord on section 59, most of the asylum seekers that come from countries and Britain they are actually coming from countries of which may be one day you may see that as a server country but those countries actually go into chaos and great difficulty. So, to define that country in our rather difficult habit that we have at the moment is almost a precarious decision to take because you never know that the country that you thought was safe suddenly you discover that there has been a clue or the Government or because a lot of theft which is not simply a question of corruption because, for me, corruption at the heart it is because it is organised theft that is going on in the country and because of the vicissitudes that actually exist into majority of people that come to this country illegally please let us not assure ourselves that the countries that we think are safe now are going to be safe in the next two months.

Things change pretty quickly. If you're going to be repealing the illegal Immigration Act 23 and section 28 then it is best to take into 59 and not 58 because of the difficulty we find ourselves in defining what you thought was a safe country and to put it in legislation I think it is very unwise question. Four May, I think the Noble Lord brown has been wise in inviting us that actually we should go to section 59 because we will be covering this uncertainty that really still exists and also the noble and Leonard Lord Hope has also supported amendment 104 with good reason.

I do not want to repeat the arguments that were carefully drafted by the Noble Lord brown, simply to say that I come everyone, find myself in a position to say knowing that I come from Uganda which today you may think is stable and it finds itself in great difficulty tomorrow, so is the next steps let us not assume a country where we want to send the people are safe because you do not know how quickly that temperature may change and you find yourself that you have legislated for something that really you should not do.

Let's be legislators.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord the Minister frequently when responding to questions about immigration in
17:15
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
questions about immigration in general frequently repeated this phrase in central obligations and I fully understand that. But following their raising of the issue of that 1951 Convention, I asked the Government in their written questions in August of last yeah, were they talking to our allies and friends with regards to reviewing the convention? Given the changing circumstances of the world since the day that it was drafted. And I got a one-liner to say no. I repeated the question on 15 June.

And I exceeded the one line. But I was told that it had been looked at as long ago as 2018 in the United Nations, but no action had been taken, so, effectively, no discussions were taking place with our allies with Given the fact that we have been dealing with the small boat problem from 2018 and we are in excess of 180,000 people... The whole thing, government and Parliament, over a prolonged period of time, has presided over a reckless endangerment of our stability as a nation.

We cannot be for everything pattern on the surface of the arse, that is where we are. There are 48 million people in Sudan, 99% of Sudanese people who cross in boats who receive asylum. Every single citizen of Sudan could turn up here and get asylum. That is what that means. We are not joining up the dots between the numbers... And it is largely a number issue. Between the numbers and the pressure on public services on housing, health public services on housing, health and education.

Between 2021 and... Between 2001 and 2021, we added 7 million people to our population. We are not helping people, because actually, I never thought I would see or hear today... We have seen people in the papers saying they did not feel safe in this country. And then we asked the ending armed police to the -- and then we are sending armed police to the airport to pick up a writer. We have lost the plot. The issues of Georgia and so on, there is no question of doubt that we can point out to all of these countries and point the finger and say, you have a problem there.

And they have a problem. There is no question of doubt, the standards that you and I would apply in this country to people who come from minority situations are different to those that apply from others. We think India as a fast country, part of it might be safer. But not for others, the same applies to former Soviet republics, the Middle East, virtually across the board. There are very few countries left in the world today who would perhaps reach the level of safety that those of us in this chamber might feel Forward.

People, even today, are saying the United States is totally safe. Could we not make cases today to point out the full -- the floors that they would face. I understand the dilemma on this, and I understand the point that has been made by Lord Brian, but we do have to face some facts. We are not capable, as a country, to maintain a reasonable standard of living and continue the way that we are running this place, it is just not working for us and it is not working for the people.

We are putting stress on ourselves, stress on the public services, and, at the same time, huge amounts of money. Lord Jackson made the point about money, that is not the half of it! Hotels, the last time the Minister gave me an answer, worth £6.7 million per day, I asked what was the cost of non-hotel accommodation and he told me it was costing too much to answer the question. I did not get an answer. But I will get it, I can assure him.

The point is, when we add in all the other costs, the cost that we pay organisations to try and look after the interests of these people, the fact that our Border Force has been diverted from its primary role, the fact that we have vast numbers of civil servants trying to manage this huge system, which is creaking under the pressure. The costs are colossal and that is only the tip of the iceberg, there may be £6.7 billion per day for hotels, I believe, personally, the real cost is probably £20 million per day.

But we will see. No doubt. Further questioning will get an answer in due course. I would have thought it made sense to talk to our allies, not only about the Refugee Convention of 1951 but we need to talk to them about how the European convention. It was largely developed by this country, something many members are proud of. But, just as Whitehall, goldplated responses to the EU, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a tendency in our courts to push the envelope out well beyond what the intention of Parliament and those who broke the treaties intended.

This happens, things change, which is precisely why we should be talking to our allies. Because many of them are facing the same problems, we cannot sit and accept the situation from 80 years ago and assumed that is applicable to today. As the Archbishop said, things can change. And they are changing. Our world is dominated by authoritarian leaders and corruption and all of the other forces. And, therefore, we are living in... We cannot simply stick ourselves on the ground after the Second World War, which is what we are doing.

We have to move, we have to look, but we do not want to destroy the fundamental benefits of these treaties. But we have to make sure that they have credibility with the public and I can assure you, my Lords, if you go out onto the streets, although we have got to support the 1951 Convention and we have got to support this, it means nothing to the lives of ordinary people. That is the mistake that Parliament and government have been making for the last 20 years.

making for the last 20 years.
17:23
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I write to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Murray. Which has been so ably supported by noble Lords. I have been glad of the response of the noble Lord in the chamber, very constructive suggestions. I think, across the House, there is a recognition that we have a problem, I know that in the House of Commons it is recognised across the benches. I have heard it discussed on these benches with great sense of constructive approach to try and deal with things as they are.

I think that is the approach of Lord Murray. Because we are looking at the figures, as others have it, they are really very high. And costs which are very high. We know that 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. That is 14% more than in the year ending June 2024. And eight% more than in the previous peak of 103,000 than in the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002. Of asylum claims, 55,700 come from people arriving on small boats.

Or through other illegal routes. The East, 43,000 on small boat crossings and 12,000 through such routes as the back of a lorry, shipping containers or without relevant documentation. Now, around 41,000 asylum seekers who have come to the UK separately on a visa or other, they include 41,000, the full figures, who have come, on an authorised route. Who seek asylum. We are dealing with two very broad categories. People who are coming through these irregular roots and people who are coming through legal route.

All of whom claim asylum, or did so with these numbers in 2025. The people who come by small boats, or in other ways, in lorries or shipping containers, normally come directly from France. For which they travel these dangerous crossings across the seas, where, after arrival, for the year ending June, we see the figures for those claiming asylum. Now, why did they come to the UK? There are many reasons, noble Lord has spoken about the many reasons why they come here.

Because one of the legal answers that UK immigration law, they would have been deemed to have committed an offence for not having the necessary organisation -- authorisation to enter, as stipulated under the Immigration Act. They would therefore have been deemed to have committed an offence. But the arrangement of the immigration 19 nine, as discussed by immigration 19 nine, as discussed by my noble friend, is based on section 31 of the Refugee Convention. And that convention suggests that where lack afraid -- life or freedom is threatened and they present themselves to the authorities, or if the person did stop in a safe country before coming to the UK,, and this is section 2, he must show he could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention.

We know that just under half of claims, 48%, which received an initial decision in the year ending June 25 were granted. Although a smaller proportion, by comparison, with the year June 2024, when it was 58%, or below the peak of 77% in 2022, that figure is still around half of all people claiming asylum. In France, this might be one of the reason why they travel along, whether it is a good Leader, -- a good reason, it will be for the courts to decide come in France the figure is 27%.

Of course, these figures will change when they have appeals or refuse. Reviews. Lord Murray has spoken about the legal context and initial meaning of the Refugee Convention and the relevant article 31. I would like to say a word about the historic convention, it was, in the post-war, Second World War era, this is another time, another world, we were dealing with different problems. The post-war settlement of Europe, when many of the bodies had been withdrawn and people had suffered terribly under various...

Under the occupation by Germany. And, indeed, the Soviet Union, many died. So, we are dealing with questions in the Refugee Convention arising from a war in which Britain played a leading part to the forefront to defend her own sovereignty and, as Churchill said, all parties agreed to restore the liberty of European countries subjugated by the 1945 by Germany. We can understand the historical context and I accept fully the context that Lord Murray has outlined.

Because of the changed interpretation, the law as we have it is applied to facilitate global migration in an era of mass travel, much of it with economic aims. Noble Lords on other benches have drawn attention to the legacy which we are dealing with and how we tackle it. I hope... I sincerely hope that the government will accept this amendment in the spirit of which it is offered, in line with government policy, not to abandon international conventions, it restores a meaning and it is, to my mind, a lifeline towards saving the constitutional democracy of this country which we see night after night on our screens under threat because people in this country, who are law-abiding and who want...

Have welcomed refugees, over centuries, far more than other countries, have really cannot bear the brunt of it anymore. I've the the brunt of it anymore. I've the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment inspires me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment inspires me to join. The Lord Murray's reading of the refugee Convention was one with which the House is familiar first of which the House is familiar first of we heard it down the years. It is not one which the world, as yet, it not one which the world, as yet, it is not one which the world yet is not one which the world yet accepts. It is not accepted by the UNHCR and this would be rather Trumpian to propose the change, the interpretation by unilateral interpretation by unilateral legislation.

If we wish to see a change, there are procedures set out change, there are procedures set out in the convention for proposing that change, that is standard practice and it would be a little odd for us and it would be a little odd for us to establish that the Marie interpretation as set out in the 2021 article proving the error of 2021 article proving the error of their ways of so many Governments around the world without ourselves trying to sell the Marie argument.

I do not myself believe in it for the following reasons. Let's think about Afghanistan. If you are an Afghan and the Taliban are after you and there is a price on your head and you manage to get over Khyber and you get to be Sharma and you then get on a plane and come here or get here by any means, under the Marie amendment to all three we would be required to send you back immediately to Afghanistan because you have on Lord Murray's reading of the convention you have come indirectly, you have touched ground in Pakistan, therefore you cannot have asylum in the United Kingdom.

That is, that would, if that became the general interpretation the whole purpose of the convention would be completely eroded. The purpose of the convention was to ensure that neighbouring states do not have to neighbouring states do not have to carry all the burden. Most refugees want to stay in neighbouring states because they hope to go home. But convention was not intended to say that all refugees must stay in neighbouring states. There was an element of burden sharing and there still is, so it seems to me that if we were to put this amendment into the bill and require the Government to follow what I heard that the noble and learned Lord have what may be of value plausible interpretation of the convention I do not know, I am not a lawyer, if we to put it in we would be seen by all our convention partners as acting in breach of the convention because they do not agree.

The right course would be to seek a conference at which we propose that the convention should in future be read in a different way from the ways we have read in the past. I have to oppose read in the past. I have to oppose this amendment very strongly stop
17:35
17:36
17:38
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
not understand it, I do not understand it at all, mind you I am an ordinary person. I think that the discussion so far has been very helpful at raising some very key issues that the country is preoccupied with. And I think that the sensible way to approach this which I think we have started to do is to say that there should be a proper and open debate on it which is why, in fact, we need to have a proper discussion about whether the 1951 refugee Convention is appropriate for 2025 and very different circumstances.

And, actually, some of the amendments have allowed us to reflect on that. I would like to say that the noble Lords speech, all I can say is that every word, I mean really on the money, absolutely, here here. Because I think that what we sometimes can do is have discussions in this chamber that bear little relationship to the political context and the social and cultural context of what everybody else in the country is talking about. And I have to say that there have been times during this debate in which the discussion about what constitutes safety and fleeing unsafe countries gives us a hint as to how we got into what can only be described as a very serious political crisis in this country.

Because the definition of what constitutes unsafe, the definition of what constitutes asylum, the definition of what constitutes refugees has become so expansive that it is a miracle or a mystery to me that anyone has been deported. And if anyone was listening you would just think we cannot do anything. Just to give you an example of some of the things that were argued, I was involved in a debate on the radio about whether or not Albania was a safe country some months ago.

And the example given was one that has been cited here today about the levels of domestic violence in Albania. I was pointing out that most of the people that I had seen in the small boats were Albanian that did not look like they were the victims of domestic by but they may well as of the historic split sex was in terms of domestic split sex was in terms of domestic by have been the domestic abusers in the small boats. I was only pointing this out because I just think every time you say well surely there is no reason why they should be in this country, they are from a safe country, people will say no they are not.

And then you basically get left in the situation where you cannot believe them. At one point, yes, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady moves on, that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady moves on, that is exactly the point that many of us are making that you cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are making that you cannot generalise. I think I can just put up that point. Indeed, I was going onto quote that noble Baroness which said that that noble Baroness which said that that noble Baroness which said that a country may be safe generally, but not for a particular section of the population. I think that you were more or less saying that about not more or less saying that about not generalising but I think it is to say this is a safe country or not, say this is a safe country or not, the problem I have got is to say these countries are not safe or to these countries are not safe or to say every country can be safe but not to some groups of people and we end up therefore saying that the whole world is likely with some sections to be unsafe and come to sections to be unsafe and come to the UK and my argument is that we cannot be in a situation where we cannot be in a situation where we open up to everybody who is in an unsafe situation from around the world.

By the way, that would be world. By the way, that would be true of this country. The United Kingdom when it comes to, for example, the threat of violence against women and girls, you could say that the UK is a very safe country but let me tell you that it is not a safe country, it has not been a safe country in hundreds of towns in this country for thousands and thousands of young women, girls and children, who were sexually abused and raped in their thousands in an industrial fashion and that was in the safe country in the United Kingdom, so I am not repented generalise, but I am also saying that we cannot simply say that the lived experience of those individuals who have suffered at the hands of others in other countries should be automatically assumed that they could move to the United Kingdom.

I suppose that just gets me to the final thing that I wanted to say to ask for some guidance from the Noble Lord the Minister in terms of the status of this bill. And I did read through a lot of the sections of notes of things that I was going to say in preparation for today and the forthcoming days of committee. And I did think all my goodness, this bill is completely out of date. I do not mean it is out of date as far as I am concerned but it is out of date as far as the Government is concerned because a number of amendments I put my name to a think I am now looking like a sort of lily live at liberal type in comparison with some of the front bench comments made by Labour Government Ministers.

I thought I was being rather tentative there on the European Court of European rights. But no, it is all.. And the Home Secretary is covering herself in union jacks and flags and so on as she has told us. I thought oh, I do not know where to go now, but in all seriousness the Government, perfectly reasonably, has said that commentary time is short, in general. I think that it is under a lot of scrutiny, we all know. There is a lot of amendments to the bill but I was going to ask whether it would be possible for the Government frontbench to maybe assess all of the amendments that are in across the House in different directions the House in different directions and basically tick all of those that might actually the Government might actually not agree with so that we do not waste parliamentary time discussing things which actually there is a sort of general unanimity, even if not amongst the Backbench of the Government, but certainly the frontbench.

And as we continue, however, because we will be discussing the bill, I do think we should just bear in mind that constantly the reason why there is concern for international conventions, is that this point the whole point of us being here has to pass legislation which it considers to be in the best interest of people that live in this country and of this country and the national interest being important and if then the will of the people as expressed in Parliament cannot happen because of international conventions, human of international conventions, human rights international laws as interpreted by a plethora of lawyers, then it means that democracy is threatened and I therefore do agree with the Noble Lord when he says we should look at some of this again and I do hope that the Government will therefore look at it again and we do not have to waste time on some amendments which actually the covetable, broadly speaking, agree with.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness, this does feel a noble Baroness, this does feel a little like a second reading debate today, but there are two good reasons for that. One is quite a bit reasons for that. One is quite a bit of time has passed since we last met in this chamber to discuss the in this chamber to discuss the subject. And, secondly, an awful lot has happened. And I was fascinated has happened. And I was fascinated to see, for example, the kite being third of our digital ID cards which third of our digital ID cards which is an incredibly important subject and has a huge bearing on the and has a huge bearing on the question of illegal immigration which will affect people once they which will affect people once they which will affect people once they I think it is fair that we have a wide-ranging debate.

I think, when wide-ranging debate. I think, when we started looking at this Bill, very much the commentary around the very much the commentary around the bill is that it is thick, at least a day and 1/2 we spent talking about day and 1/2 we spent talking about the border control, a renamed civil servant with the powers they had servant with the powers they had previously. And the Bill was not a substantive one. Since that time, we have heard the government floating various initiatives around digital ID cards, Iran OCHA, around the reform of family access if I can describe it as that, that is a moving target.

It doesn't feel as if there is an argument to pause with this Bill whilst some of these initiatives are worked through. At that point, we need to be frank about the nature of the situation. About the nature of the factors that are driving people to choose the UK as their destination of choice. The noble Lord the Minister and I had a number of interactions to try and get to the bottom of why the government believes that the UK is so popular amongst those who are going through a number of other
17:48
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
countries. And I am not satisfied, I am not convinced that I have had am not convinced that I have had really a full answer to that really a full answer to that question. I think some of it lies around the low chance of being around the low chance of being deported from this country. My noble friend, Lord Murray, in his friend, Lord Murray, in his amendments, at least has come forward with a substantive forward with a substantive suggestion, whether that works, legally or not, I am not the person legally or not, I am not the person to say.

When I saw the noble Lord to say. When I saw the noble Lord anxious to rise to his feet, I thought a massive torpedo was going thought a massive torpedo was going to be launched. There were a number of us who scratched our heads and of us who scratched our heads and said, have we heard correctly? I am delighted that we have, I think we delighted that we have, I think we are all on the same side here. Very are all on the same side here.

Very rarely on exactly the same side. I will accept her correction. I think the overall description of the situation, we cannot just do nothing or scratch around at the edges. We need to look at different situations and different solutions, that is why I look forward to the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am conscious it has been a long group already, but I was not intending on speaking in this debate. The first raising of my head debate. The first raising of my head of this Bill... I was listening to of this Bill... I was listening to what other members said, I was answering on behalf of the Home Office from the despatch box at the tail end of last government, I am sorry to say, I was involved in the sorry to say, I was involved in the drafting within Number 10 of the drafting within Number 10 of the Rwanda deal with the previous Minister.

It was good then, it is Minister. It was good then, it is good now. Anyway... What I would just like to say...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just like to say... The noble Lord said it was good, there was a provision in the Rwanda there was a provision in the Rwanda bill which said that, notwithstanding the mean that Rwanda was safe, it might not be safe for was safe, it might not be safe for the individual. The Bill would not have even have worked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have even have worked. That is a slight defect of the Bill, I think that ship has sailed now. The point that I will come back to, Rwanda did have a deterrent, that is what we are lacking, it might have only been in small numbers, it might not have been the numbers we wanted to come but it was a deterrent and, in my view, it was one part of a series of steps we should have been taking. The reason
17:51
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
that I speak to back my noble friend and those amendments, certainly not because I've been told to, as Lord because I've been told to, as Lord Jackson said, this is not about pulling out of the ECHR, or the pulling out of the ECHR, or the Refugee Convention, and this is not about think we do not want to accept about think we do not want to accept any refugees. It is about tackling the Illegal Migration Act and crossings we have had. We have heard one inspector raise its head today one inspector raise its head today in the form of the elected President of the United States.

Another we of the United States. Another we have not heard, I'm sure we will at some stage, the other spectre on the horizon, the spectre of reform and horizon, the spectre of reform and throughout. I will like to echo what throughout. I will like to echo what Baroness Fox said. There is a genuine... I'm not saying the ministers don't, but outside this hall, there is a deep growing sense of unease and anger, it is building and the frustration is building.

I know it is not unique to this government, it has been going for some time, but it has grown exponentially lately. I think it is because there is the sense of injustice, lack of control. It is crucially because we need, the government have said, we need that deterrent, we need to tackle the crossings. We have to group this, we have to tackle the numbers, we have to tackle the pull factor, at the moment, there is nothing in there.

There is not any deterrent as it currently stands, that is why I support my noble friend and the two amendments from my own Frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been, I think, a game of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been, I think, a game of two halves. One half which is very much, I think, strikes what I would call a second reading speech and speeches and issues and the other speeches and issues and the other half which is very specific about the structure and the place in this the structure and the place in this Bill on the safety issues. I will deal, first of all, with the
17:53
17:54
17:54
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
friends, Baroness Hamwee, supported by Baroness Brinton, on the section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. My first question to the government is, first question to the government is, why are you retaining this section why are you retaining this section of the Illegal Migration Act? Which has not been enacted, I understand. And I understand the rationale is not recall operational benefit. That could mean you have petrol in the car or it can mean you have some car or it can mean you have some vehicle you want to move forward.

I think an explanation of what that think an explanation of what that operational benefit is would be helpful because the retention of this section, effectively, removed this section, effectively, removed the Secretary of state's discussion and renders them inadmissible. Like we have been talking about, generally, I can't recall the 2023 particularly, for avoiding the risk of refoulement, which we have talked about significantly over the years. It seems to me that it is down to the government to tell us why they want to retain this section.

Because we talked about the threshold which was for admissibility being negligible. There was only a limited, as I understand it, judicial review route but no right of appeal. It is a very thin route you can get somebody wishes to try and appeal. I know that a judicial review is very simple... Not a very simple process, it requires assistance. There are major concerns, which my colleagues have raised, particularly about Georgia, and colleagues are in this chamber and will know, we have spoken to the leaders of political parties many of them, we spoke to them, one of them I spoke to went back the last day and was imprisoned.

Just think about this policy... By the way, Georgia is in the government this, not the Conservative list, even they agree George is not safe. Just imagine, we were commended by the Lord Speaker to attend at a time and signup for a particular support motion for the government. That would be not a recommendation but an imprisonable offence, that is what is happening. Political freedoms, which we all think are essential, are being delegated in Georgia at the moment.

All that has been said, in the context, and we have heard again about the changes in countries, frequently they can ( $$JOINTHE. You can not afford to say, this place is safe, and then if years later change your mind about them after so many people have suffered because of the actions contained within it. I repeat the report from the United Nations, you have to make an individual assessment and make sure you are negating the risk of refoulement.

I would like to turn briefly, if I may, to the second half, just to say two things. I thought Lord Empey was right, if you are a member of a convention and you want to change it in a big way, not just there is room, in the way that conventions are placed, for movement and adjustment and interpretation issues, if you want to do it severely, and I would maintain the amendment that Lord Murray is designating is not severe, the only people who could be admitted to this country, for example, would be people who took a site directly from Cedar to London Heathrow.

There are not any flights, I know that there are noble Lords who say that and know about that, the experience I would say is this, it is right for conventions to be examined all the time, it is right for them to try and move on. And I noted many mistakes, by the way, in which people are interpreting the ECHR as being a body of Europe, it is actually a body of the Council of Europe. I would like the Minister to answer this question.

I spoke to the Secretary general of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the Council of ministers, including this country. He said, discussion and the ECHR is underway amongst the countries of the Council of Europe. Those who say, by the way, I must get this point in, those who say we should leave the ECHR, we will be leaving the Council of Europe as well. We, as a country, 151 conventions which we have signed up to about the freedoms we all take for granted.

We have got to be clear about this, take Lord Empey's approach, if you think something and it is only underway in this area, and how far it has progressed but it has started, and I know that that discussion will progress. In terms of this Parliament, I do not think there are any other members in the chamber who are members of the IEC committee. Lord Jackson estimate the agreement, where a decision was taken not to have the scrutiny under a private arrangement, it is the IEC committee which doesn't on behalf Parliament, not just the House of Lords, but the House of Commons.

We discussed this matter yesterday, it is clearly important and the noble Baroness is there, she will tell you, there was an exchange of letters between the government and the committee, and we have an agreement from the Secretary of State for Home affairs that there will be an evidence session, they will provide detail on the agreement, the committee will report to Parliament and report and there can be a debate in this House on that matter. In some senses, it is a bit of an advantage to have a treaty in action in this case, we can report on what is happening rather The second best, but it was certainly possible for us for it to happen.

In conclusion, I think that I return to my first question which is why does the Government want to retain this section of the Illegal Migration Act? And, if it does, what is the operational benefit?
18:01
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
This has been a very wide-ranging debate. And has departed in many ways from that list in the group that we are debating, but it has been very worthwhile and a fascinating debate. And as my Noble Friend Lord Gascoigne said, I think that the context for the debate has to be what he termed a growing sense of injustice on the part of many people in this country about the direction of our immigration system and I think that should be borne in mind by us all as we debate not just this group with this bill in general.

Returning then to the amendment in the name of the Noble Lord brown and the amendment which attempts to remove section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act from the statute book, I would suggest that the principle of that section is a straightforward one. And it is one that is hard to disagree with. And that principle is as follows, if an individual is a national of a country where there is no general risk of persecution, human rights are respected and where there is access to justice and democratic accountability, is it not right that the claim be considered inadmissible unless there are exceptional grounds? And is it not right that instead we focus on finite resources and time on those regimes were oppression, conflict, and state violence are real and present dangers? The practical benefits of section 59 significant.

The section reduces administrative and clerical delay, it streamlines case working and she was that officials can focus on the most serious and the most urgent claims and it establishes a clear statutory list of safe states with the ability to amend that list through accountable Parliamentary procedure. That list is not certain stone, it can change. It has both clarity and fix ability and by failing to adopt this section we risk achieving the opposite, we risk a system clogged with vexatious or unfounded claims by illegal gamesmanship and I say that as a lawyer.

And by delays that come at the cost not only to the taxpayer but, more importantly, to those who truly do need our help, namely the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. That we have a moral duty to protect. I would suggest to your Lordships house section 59 helps to ensure that duty is fulfilled, not diluted, and it prioritises principle it preserves the fairness of the system and promotes justice, and for those reasons, despite the long-standing respect that I have for the Noble Lord, I am unable to support his amendment.

Can I turn then to amendment 192? Tabled in by my Noble Friend Lord Davies. This amendment does not target gender refugees or close the door to those in real and urgent need who use safe and legal routes to come to the UK but what it does is ensure that the law applies equally to all that enter this country legally or who make claims from other countries are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those who enter clandestinely. We cannot have a duty illegal system, one for citizens, illegal migrants, and another for those that deliberately reach our laws and then ask for protection.

And we need to remember that this is not just damaging for us in our legal system but it is damaging and dangerous for the migrants themselves. It adds power to the criminal gangs and encourages risky dangerous unlawful crossings. And it ensures that the vulnerable people who are drawn into a system that is harder, not easier, to navigate. And that ties in with amendment 203J tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Murray lit with spoken to him with his customary lucidity and compelling arguments.

I do note that it was supported by the Noble Lord hope at least tentatively and he also claimed that Noble Lord Roger of old Sperry that he mentioned two of Scotland's most eminent juries in the last 25 years and I think both the Noble Lord Marie and Lord Jackson of Peterborough and many others have made excellent points about that amendment which is very sensible underlining premise, those should claim asylum when they get to a safe country.

Travelling through multiple safe countries are then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK is of use to that system, and I therefore support that amendment. Amendment 193 in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lord for giving way. What is his answer that has been given by the Noble Lord code been given by the Noble Lord code that really we have got no business interpreting the refugee convention at a domestic level. It is a matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the wide world that considers the convention. I grateful to the Noble Lord. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the Noble Lord. I think that my answer is that it is think that my answer is that it is our business and that we can devise an asylum movement in system for this country and that is entitled this country and that is entitled for us to make points that not only the Lord Marie has made but also the the Lord Marie has made but also the Frontbench for the Conservative party have made throughout this bill. This is about achieving a system that deters Illegal Migration Act and it allows those that are in Act and it allows those that are in real need to use safe or illegal risk to come to the UK.

Our amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Taking the Noble Lord Marie's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taking the Noble Lord Marie's amendment, I entirely understand the situation that somebody has come situation that somebody has come over illegally and has no good reason to stay here, but if that person comes from an unsafe country, where would you send them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point noble Baroness for making that point and I think that Lord Marie's and I think that Lord Marie's argument is that those who are genuine asylum seekers have to claim asylum when they reach a safe country and what it is aimed at stopping is travelling through stopping is travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An Afghan soldier who served alongside our troops with whom they alongside our troops with whom they have a duty has no safe route to get to the UK now? Are you suggesting to the UK now? Are you suggesting that the should not support the asylum application if they arrived illegally, only illegally because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegally, only illegally because your Government made it so? I am suggesting and supporting the premise that you have to claim a the premise that you have to claim a genuine asylum seeker should claim asylum when they get to a safe country. Our amendment 1936 to incorporate, if I can move on to incorporate, if I can move on to amendment 193, in my name, our amendment seeks to incorporate what I believe should be an entirely uncontroversial principle.

If someone arrives in this country at the sanctuary they should say so and they should say so without delay. This demand is the bare minimum of 40 functioning immigration and as system should expect and I would argue that this amendment brings clarity and discipline to that expectation and establishes a one- year window in which claims must be made and ensures that claims beyond that point without compelling reason are not entertained. And once will I want to be very clear on this point, that is a defence of genuine refugees because when our system is flooded with last-minute opportunistic and tactical claims it is those with genuine protection needs who suffer the delays growing longer and the backlogs increasing and the resources stretched dinner and we are what to those in real danger to assure that the system works for them and not those seeking to gain from it.

It is an amendment drawn from the new Canadian asylum and rules which also impose a one- year time remit for claiming asylum in the same way. Even the Home Secretary herself has acknowledged this is an acute problem, as my From the despatch boxes today, the Government has stated that they want to clampdown on students who come to the UK on a student visa, then claim asylum once they are in the UK, often at the end of their visa. This amendment would repent that from happening since if a person came to the UK, studied for three as at university, then attempted to make an asylum claim, they would not be able to do so.

I look forward to hearing with the Noble Lord the Minister says in response. Finally, amendment 203 insert name of the Noble Lady baroness and that removes Albania, Georgia, and India from the list of safe states in the list of nationality to thousand and two act, I would urge the House very carefully to consider the implications of such a move, not only for the integrity but our bilateral immigration enforcement systems and indeed for the principal of the evidence-based policy.

Let us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

begin with Albania. This amendment. I am sorry is that Noble Lord was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry is that Noble Lord was clearly about to go through this but perhaps he could add friends to that because I have been wondering about our relationship with France, if we our relationship with France, if we were to pursue the route of were to pursue the route of existing, the last or any safe country through which an asylum country through which an asylum seeker travels should be aware that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he pursues asylum. I will continue to go through the list as would begin with Albania, this amendment proposes to/from the list we need to remember a nation list we need to remember a nation with which they netted kingdom is a formal agreement, an agreement formal agreement, an agreement signed in 2022 and the organised signed in 2022 and the organised criminal, it allows for the Swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK, and she right to remain in the UK, and she was a genuine protection of claims to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister himself visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning male asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status and cooperates with a range of international human rights mechanisms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to say that Georgia has been suspended for reasons we have just talked about about the way that they treat people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they treat people. I would still suggest that it cooperates with a range of human cooperates with a range of human cooperates with a range of human rights mechanisms. And India also is the world's largest democracy, a the world's largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner. And a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitution of protections for minorities and independent judiciary and the regular multiparty elections. To suggest that these countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law and risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound.

Are there other challenges in all societies? Yes, of course. in all societies? Yes, of course. That is a point made very forcefully by the Noble Lord in his contribution. But that is not the test. Because the test under section test. Because the test under section 80 aa is whether in general the 80 aa is whether in general the country poses a serious risk. The statutory test is a general one. statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise and a lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments.

The question she has to ask herself as a genuine one. Does that country, in general, pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, firstly, and whether removal to those countries would contravene our human rights obligations. I would suggest, quite firmly, that neither testes remotely impaired in the case of Georgia, Albania, or endeavours of genuine refugees deserve our protection and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims of national of safe democratic states, and that is why we cannot support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment. I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a very wide discussion. Wider than I possibly anticipated. But I sense at the end of the debate I probably will not satisfy many noble lords on the satisfy many noble lords on the chamber today but such is the nature of Government responsibilities. Could I state at the outset that I was not intending again to say this was not intending again to say this but I think that given the comments from the noble Viscount Lord Baroness Fox and the Noble Lord and Baroness Fox and the Noble Lord and others that it is worthwhile and others that it is worthwhile and indeed the Noble Lord MP it is worthwhile just setting out that the Government does take this issue extremely seriously.

The Government extremely seriously. The Government in its manifesto would also in the actions not just in this bill also
18:16
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
actions not just in this bill also in the immigration white paper that we published and also the unilateral actions that we have taken independently now requiring legislation. I tried to take the issue of the illegal entry, defining our asylum system and tackling a proper effective immigration system This government has spent time talking to allies in France, as agreed by the treaty which is looking at an exchange, to be looked at in detail, we are working with the Calais group, to try and work on international action to stop smuggling, we are working downstream with the German parliament and German government to look at tackling issues to do with boat manufacturer and transfers.

We have signed agreements with Iraq, it powers to establish the border command and make sure that criminal activity, as discussed in sessions today, we have a commitment to reduce hotel use and we have, over the past 12 months, set £1 billion worth of expenditure by reducing the number of hotels used and maximising the use of those hotels. We have put energy into a crackdown to try and stop some of the factors that are there when people think they can come to the country, disappear into the system and work illegally, 20 crackdown on that.

We have increased the number of arrests and secretions. We have sped up the claim system, at the heart of this is determining people's asylum claims, determining who has a right to stay and then removing those who do not. We have increased those asylum claim speeding up processes and increased removals white 9,000 people being -- by over 9,000 people removed. And this is not because... Enough members have said the Bill seems to be frozen in time and things have moved on, I can assure the noble Baroness we will have a debate and we can discuss that in due course in a friendly way.

But there are issues we are looking at and the measures that my noble friend, the Home Secretary, has brought forward this week, are based on the assessment that the Home Secretary has made on the situation which is continually ongoing. If we find a family reunion to give the example of this week, is increasing by over 100% in the past two years, and is a big issue in terms of people coming to the country through that route, it is right to suspend, as we will do shortly, that route, to review it.

That is what governments do, we look at problems and challenges and review it but we have set out in this Bill a number of measures to establish a fairer, stronger system in the immigration white paper we have done the same and actions we have taken accordingly elsewhere, similarly, to have a purpose. Again, I don't want to see the type of concerns, distrust, disorder that there is around hotel use and people who are here whilst asylum claims are assessed, I do not see that at all.

I want to understand that there are concerns and, again, I'm not making this party political, those concerns have risen and driven over the past nine years, in relation to that small boat crossings. I had my temporary font Parliament in both houses and made cases and arguments for the Rwanda scheme, which has some flaws, which we have taken the decision to repeal in full. I think we have a shared understanding from all sides that this is an issue that needs to be challenged and tackled and that is why we are setting out the measures today.

A number of amendments before us, I will try to talk to those amendments as a whole, I will start with the opposition frontbench, because they are the opposition and they are the frontbench, I think it is fair to start with that. I will return to Lord Brown in due course. The two amendments, 190 and 193, seek to widen the current inadmissibility provisions. Currently, individuals can be removed to a safe, third country if they are inadmissible. That includes a legal entrance as well as other claimants whose claims are liable to inadmissibility.

Inadmissibility processes are intended to support the safety of asylum seekers, the integrity of the border and fairness to the asylum system by encouraging asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and deter them from making unnecessary and dangerous onward journeys. For a claim to be declared inadmissible, the individual has to have been present previously in or have a connection to a safe third country where they could be reasonably expected to have claimed asylum. Amendment 190, anybody who arrives illegally must have the asylum clean -- claim declared inadmissible.

That amendment would mean that all asylum seekers to enter the UK illegally would have claim declared inadmissible with no regard for whether there is a safe, third country for them to return to. Such an approach would, in my view, mean that a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible, which means we cannot establish whether they qualify for refugee status. In that scenario, those individuals will be in a holding position, unable to be removed and, including those with genuine claims, who would have their claims assessed now under the system and there are 60% of people who make a claim where the claim is currently approved.

That is a difficult challenge, it is with integrity that he has moved it but it is difficult and it would not have the objective that he would seek, simile, amendment one monthly -- 193, individuals will have asylum claims declared inadmissible when they failed to register an asylum claim within 12 months. Again, there is a motive behind that which has an integrity, but when I cannot share, those people who launch asylum claims will... In an opportunistic manner come sometimes to extend the time they can remain in the UK, this amendment would not deal with that particular issue, it was simply extend indefinitely the time in which those individuals would be able to remain in the UK because, without an ability to examine the claims, we cannot determine whether they qualify for refugee status.

The amendment fails to take account of surplus refugees, which would mean anybody lawfully in the UK from a country in which the circumstances have changed, and we have had much discussion around that today, in a significant way, for example, where they could have been armed conflict in the tournament since they had been here, would be unable to avail themselves of the protection of the UK. Now, in contrast to that, we have my noble friend Lord Brown and I appreciate the other noble Lords who have spoken in support of amendment 104.

That would repeal section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, section 59 amends section 18 A of the Asylum act 2002, which provides that asylum claims from EU nationals must be declared inadmissible to the U.K.'s asylum system, other than where exceptional circumstances apply. Inadmissibility procedures in this section allow estate to declare a claim inadmissible when the claim is made by nationals of countries which are declared generally safe. It is an important process and a long- standing process which can prevent asylum claims from nationals of countries where are safe from absorbing the limited resources we have.

Now, I understand the motivation behind that but I would remind the House, section 59 is not fully commenced, indeed, the only part of section 59 have been commenced as the power to add or remove countries from that list of the said countries. However, the government believes it is important, and the right approach, to retain the capability, this goes to the question posed by Lord German, of that flexibility to extend the use inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries we would generally considered to be safe.

I think that addresses the point my noble friend has made. Now, amendment 203J has had support from a number of noble members, including Baroness Lawlor, Lord Jackson, and Lord Murray himself, who has proposed this system. We have had some discussion system. We have had some discussion around the ECHR, article 8, the French treaty, let me say again, for clarity, the government believe in the ECHR and are committed to our international obligations for a whole range of reasons, that I have outlined on a number of occasions, but that does not mean we cannot look at things and the article 8 provisions that we have said we will look at, this goes to other points made by other noble members, they are issues we will return to in the coming months, which we want to consult on, I have told colleagues in the judiciary, to ensure that we have an understanding of the interpretation of article 8 and whether it needs to be tightened in order to ensure the country is not taken for a ride by individuals who use that premise, under circumstances where they effectively are using it as a last resort in a way in which we all really do think is, if I use the word we have discussed a lot today, inadmissible.

I do not think that is appropriate but I will say, that article 8 review is ongoing and before I take the intervention, the French treaty we have established is in a pilot form, we will review it this month, we hope to extend it further, I will report back to the House on the numbers involved and there are other tools we are working on to ensure that we can put energy into tackling this important problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking this intervention and for taking this intervention and explaining, in general terms, the government is thinking about and I government is thinking about and I understand why, at the moment, he can't be more specific. But may I ask this, he said the consideration ask this, he said the consideration to article 8, should it not also embrace article 3, which is often used in circumstances where many used in circumstances where many people, at least, would raise a question as to how appropriate it is?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is? I am happy to examine that, we have said, publicly, article 8 is have said, publicly, article 8 is the purpose for our examination discussion and our wider review, but discussion and our wider review, but that's not mean, again, this is the key point, it is not mean we are going to be ditching the ECHR, going to be ditching the ECHR, which, although it is 85... 75 to 80 which, although it is 85... 75 to 80 years old, it was established in years old, it was established in 1950, it establishes, as a number of members have mentioned, a number of basic rights.

Those rights are basic rights. Those rights are important to me, the people we represent, the people in our communities, they set a basic framework but it does not mean we can't look at how the interpretations are made and that is why we are trying to do that. If I come back to the amendments, to a 3J, it would impose a legal obligation to refuse all asylum claims, made by illegal or other irregular migrants, who travelled from safe countries, the stated intention of the measure is to deter such people using dangerous or illegal methods from entering the UK.

I am with Lord Kerr on this, the amendment would not achieve that aim. Refusing a person's asylum claim and proposing removal to the country of origin would indeed put the UK in breach of its obligations of the Refugee Convention and we may not want to be in the Refugee Convention, but we are, and we can't, in my view, breach those obligations. Even if a person's asylum claim could be refused on account of this measure, the humanitarian protection claim would need to be properly considered on its merits.

Furthermore,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate the difficulty of the I appreciate the difficulty of the position from which he speaks. And the difficulty of the position of the difficulty of the position of the Home Office. The point of my amendment was not to breach international law. As I hope I made clear, the wording of the clear, the wording of the convention, article 31, is clear, one has to come directly. This is an one has to come directly.

This is an opportunity, for the government, to comply with its stated intention of comply with its stated intention of not breaching international but still deliver a policy that has a deterrent and this is a vital opportunity and I implore him not to opportunity and I implore him not to miss it just because it is coming miss it just because it is coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

miss it just because it is coming Let me reassure the Noble Lord that there is nothing personal and I would welcome any suggestions from across the House and if we reject across the House and if we reject the amendments in due course which suspect he is right, we will, then I suspect he is right, we will, then I think because if anybody else moves think because if anybody else moves it would still be rejected he knows more than anybody else the challenges of the laws that we have in the Home Office and I am grateful for his suggestions and will try to examine them but the key point is well that may be at give the Noble Lord hope this is that the merits of the claim could also attract and appeal right and we move in the possibility for assessing the claims is clearly unfounded and we will end up with even more litigation which help lawyers reach a resolution of the challenge as a whole.

And without the specific further conditions in the legislation our decision would need to explain why we consider this measure applied to individuals in these particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised allegedly life and liberty were threatened and what we consider to be safe countries. Nothing personal to the Noble Lord but we cannot accept that recommendation of an amendment. Amendment 203E had support from Baroness Brinton and my Noble Friend as well is being proposed by the noble Baroness ham way and it seeks to provide a definition of exceptional circumstances working in these provisions and also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia, and India, from the list of generally safe countries in the future.

I hope I have already explain to the House how exceptional circumstances bear upon the ability processes, section 88 already sets out some examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances which relates to states delegating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These are not exhaustive and may be a case that is That should not be applied. Present, the question of whether a person's evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. This amendment would replace the established approach.

established approach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to ask the Noble Lord particularly for this intervention in terms of derogation from the ECHR which you have just referred to, I wonder what consideration the Government is now consideration the Government is now giving to Georgia which is in clear giving to Georgia which is in clear breach of the ECHR. And where it has taken itself out because it knows it taken itself out because it knows it is in threat and has to in every engagement.

This is clearly a country, is that something that the Government is looking at? And you know you can do by regulation I know know you can do by regulation I know we are going to talk about that but since this is the only power that you are holding onto, you have got a country here that needs to be looked at very seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at very seriously. The Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual instances. Is there any correlation instances. Is there any correlation between the Foreign Office does and what the House considers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the House considers? We will take a whole Government approach on this issue. But what I would like to do, can I reflect with colleagues who are directly dealing colleagues who are directly dealing with this matter? And at report stage to examine these issues further. Well examine those comments that have been made and contact both the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord accordingly. Let me just also say that in this I think of him as my Noble Friend, the Noble Lord and indeed Baroness Fox, that while this list has been commenced, the provisions necessary for it to have any effect have not been so if this Government decides it is right to change this list and effective for inadmissibility decisions we will have time and based upon the information today will consider the countries that should be removed and that goes against a point that has just been made around Yorkshire we can consider those issues and reflect upon them by adding to the appropriate parliamentary procedures according to the criteria set out in section 80 zero AA of the legislation.

So, in summary on this, I think the Government has a solid approach to try to tackle this issue. Some of the measures are still in this pipeline because of the legislation but there is a strong series of measures to try to make an impact on what is a genuinely serious issue facing this country that needs resolution and which is built on over a number of years but I do not think that this series of amendments put before the House and this group would insist on that process, so I would ask, for the moment, at least, if the noble Lords, my Noble Friend is Lord Browne supported by Lord Cashman withdraw their amendment and the official opposition of the Noble Lord Marie and members from the Liberal Democrats could withdraw their amendments.

There are opportunities to reflect on what has been said with an examination tomorrow and there are opportunities at report stage later to return, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the moment I hope that noble Lords can withdraw their amendments. Before the Noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lord sits down, I may not be his Parliamentary friend but I am not his parliamentary enemy either. It seems parliamentary enemy either. It seems he is in an emollient mood, could I he is in an emollient mood, could I implore upon him if they are taking the governmentwide approach, as he says there are, his colleague in the says there are, his colleague in the Foreign Office has told me twice that they are not looking at the that they are not looking at the refugee Convention of 1951.

Surely we have to open a discussion with we have to open a discussion with our allies in looking at how that has been operating since its inception in 1951, so perhaps he could persuade his friends and the Government to actually look at that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

convention. The Noble Lord will know that the government's keep all matters under government's keep all matters under review at all times and that is the review at all times and that is the political civil service in response to this matter, but I assure him to this matter, but I assure him that from my perspective our international obligations are international obligations are extremely important, but that does not mean that we cannot examine how we interpret those actions and does not mean we also cannot examine things such as the measures in this bill, the measures announced by my right honourable friend this week and the direct executive actions we can take in terms of hotel use and other things to ensure that we put some pressure and energy into the system to achieve, I think about what is an objective that all of the members of this House wish to have which is a resolution of people being exploited by criminal gangs to subvert immigration in the United Kingdom.

With that, I hope that noble Lords can reflect on my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comments and do the right thing. Before the Noble Lord the Minister sits down, I may have Minister sits down, I may have misunderstood him, but did the Noble Lord the Minister said that the Government would consider from Government would consider from article 3? No, I know, I may have misunderstood, but if that is the case, I would just like to point out that is not possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is not possible. The intervention that I took

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The intervention that I took invited me to examine that issue. I have said I will examine the issue, have said I will examine the issue, but the Government, as a whole, is looking at the response to that looking at the response to that question, the Government focuses on article 8, there is a review of article 8, there is a review of article 8. We are anticipating being able to energise and review article 8 to ensure that we examine how it 8 to ensure that we examine how it is currently interpreted, what actions are taken as a result, and whether further guidance needs to be whether further guidance needs to be issued about those matters.

In response to the intervention, I have response to the intervention, I have said that what I look at article 3? I have said I will look at the point that was made then, with the focus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Government is article 8. We have clarified the position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have clarified the position and I was not actually suggesting delegating from article 8 but the suggestion was that examining suggestion was that examining article 8 and examining article 3, the possibility of getting guidance to judges I believe is under to judges I believe is under consideration and it may be resolving issues and doubles the article 8 and article 3 it may be necessary for the Government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary for the Government to think again as to what guidance to give to courts. And I thought that is what I had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thought that is what I had said, so I hope we can agree at the end of this lively group of amendments that we have had that the Government direction of travel is one that I hope the House can support with the amendment before support with the amendment before the committee today will be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. My Lords, I offer my final

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I offer my final remarks in this debate with the traditional thanks to all those that
18:41
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
have contributed to the amendment 104. And when I saw that I had the overt support of my Noble Friend, of the noble and learned Lord they said to move, the slightly more implied than overt, but Baroness Brinton which was more implied than overt, I began to think probably this is about the only group that is of similar value to this is the players at Liverpool and the transfer window. I thought I could not possibly lose until my Noble Friend explained I do not know whether I should be pleased about this or reminding him of the possibility but they found the operational benefit, I will come back to that in a moment.

I had until then and I think nine conservative speeches. I was astonished until not one of them, I think at least one of them may well have been responsible for the drafting of the legislation article that section 59 was in, not one of them defended, not one of them. I was therefore surprised with what we found that there was a pretty straightforward principle for section 59 which is not that much different than the outcome to the speech that my Noble Friend made.

But I do say this to Lord Cameron and I will spend some time expanding this out, if one looks at clause 38 of the bill ," and is going to be pretty much alone with what was in the Illegal Migration Act of 2023. It is going to find itself in a very lonely context since the Noble Lord after the argument was we had to see this in the context, its context will disappear this bill is passed in the context it isn't and I will spend some more time between now and when we get to the quote stage of the bill to just look at what that means for the ambitions that people have for section 59 as presently drafted.

The most important, some of the most important points that were made in this debate, I do not intend to rehearse with any of them. I think there has been a lot of repetition. I think it is important to start as my Noble Friend Lord Cashman encourages us all to do this in conversations and remember that it is that lived experience of people that should decide whether they deserve asylum or human rights protection. Not conclusions that Governments or officials have come to about the temporary safety of the environments.

This is all about equal and I think that if we start from that point and take into account all of the other complexities of the legislation that complexities of the legislation that we get there should be no room for section 59 in the legislation going forward and including something similar to provide a benefit management skill of this issue but it will not be that particular section. This is a matter that I will come to again. I say to my Noble Friend Lord Hanson I had hoped to have the opportunity of having a conversation with him but, unfortunately, all of the element.

With which that could have been done during the recess I hope between now and then we can have that conversation. And in the current context I beg leave to withdraw the amendment that we will come back to stop seven exit your logics pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. The question is that clause 38 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

We now come to the members beginning with amendment 105 after clause 38 amendment 105 Lord after clause 38 amendment 105 Lord
18:47
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that causes 38 and 39 stand part Meal. It is a curious feature...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry... The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry... The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 38 stand part the Bill. It is a curious feature of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a curious feature of this Bill that on the one hand, it reports to taking tough action and reports to taking tough action and yet, at the same time, repeals the act of Parliament that would tackle that Illegal Migration Act in the that Illegal Migration Act in the most robust and effective way. The Illegal Migration Act was just in Illegal Migration Act was just in the other place on 7 March 2023, in response to the crisis along the shorelines of the south-east and in the channel.

It was aimed at the channel. It was aimed at stopping the boats, defending our borders and preventing those who enter the United Kingdom illegally from being able to remain. As my from being able to remain. As my right honourable friend, this Home right honourable friend, this Home Secretary at the time, said, the British people know that border British people know that border security is national security and legal migration makes us all less safe. At the time, the Labour Party safe. At the time, the Labour Party did not agree, as they consistently opposed all efforts to stop the boats.

I have to say, it was welcome that the current government began technology the necessity of stopping the boats, it is clear from this clause, have not fully appreciated what must be done, if they had have done, they would not be pursuing this course of action. Central to all of this is that this is what British people want. They want to stop in legal migration, they want to stop people making the journey across the Channel, small boats, and they want to stop people dying.

The way we do that is by having a credible deterrent to end demanding, that deterrent needs to contain the ability to remove everyone who enters the UK illegally and a removals policy involving a safe third country. The government has spent time trying to tear down the sensible policies of the previous government, the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the same time, they have announced they want to follow the Italian approach to pursue third country removal centres.

As the Prime Minister pulled them, return helps. In a visit to Albania, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, what now we want to do and are having discussions of common talks of, return helps. B has been through the system in the UK, they need to be returned, we have to make sure they are returned effectively and we will do that, if we can, three return hubs. We now know that Albania does not want to work with the government to establish these.

The government has spent much of the last few months talking up the one in one out returns deal with France, as we know, this deal is not much more than smoke and mirrors. It is very clear that EU countries do not want to take 1/3 country returns and the only country willing to take third country returns is in fact Rwanda. That is why we pursued the policy and why we passed the Illegal Migration Act. The effect of a repeal of the Illegal Migration Act and the scrapping of the deterrent is the people who arrive in Cali know that all they have to do is make their way into British waters and they will be able to get to the United Kingdom, even if they are not x-axis for in the claim, they might be able to remain in the UK because we cannot return them for one reason or another.

The measures in the Illegal Migration Act and legal duty on the sector estate to remove illegal entrants, sending a strong message to those who would seek to flout our laws and abuse are immigration system. This act, taken intention with the wonder scheme, if allowed to operate, could have acted as a suitable deterrent. By repealing this act, almost in its entirety, the government lacks the ability to remove illegal migrants and will not be able to deter further crossings taking place.

This is highly disappointing and portrays the fact that this government is not really serious about stopping legal migration, and defending our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

borders. I beg to move. The question is that clause 38 stand part of the Bill.
18:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing the amendment, I want for proposing the amendment, I want to place on record, at the beginning, if I may, that 35,052 people were returned from 5 July, 2024, to 4 July, 2025. Of those returned, 9,000 were enforced returned of people with no legal right to remain, 24% increase over the period of the previous year. Of the total returns, 5179 enforced in voluntary returns...

I will give way in a moment. I will always give way, let me finish this sentence. Of the total returns, 5179 were foreign national offenders. An increase of 14%. Before the noble Lord puts the premise that we can't remove people, those singles -- figures put the record straight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of those 9,000, how many of those came across on a small boat? There were a number, I do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There were a number, I do not have the figure to hand. The noble have the figure to hand. The noble Lord... 9115, if they were long Lord... 9115, if they were long hanging -- low hanging fruit, why hanging -- low hanging fruit, why was this 24% you hire than the previous year? Who was the Minister previous year? Who was the Minister in charge? Would it be Lord Murray in charge? Would it be Lord Murray of Blidworth? Right, I think we shall settle at that, 24% higher than the previous year because of the actions that this government has taken.

That is the context I want to say, to the noble Lord, amendments 105 and 109 seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the duty to remove measures in the illegal migration act that we are appealing. It will not come as a appealing. It will not come as a surprise, we are not going to amendments today. Having a duty to amendments today. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but difficult to deliver in practice, as difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous meant's -- previous government's fairly.

That means taking away all discussion after finding that is not straightforward. There remains challenge of acting unreasonably. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people to when their own country is not safe for them. We have taken a judgement on the Rwanda scheme for that effect and where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and wary host country needs to agree to accept this people, if a country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK.

We already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK and have, as I mentioned, seen an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum seekers being removed since the election of July last year, along with a 14% increase in foreign national offenders being removed. The aim is to deliver long-term credible policies to ensure a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim. We are appealing the legislation that the noble Lord brought in, he is trying to reinsert it in these amendments.

There is an honest disagreement between us, I invite the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw those amendments. May I ask a question? There are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask a question? There are so many statistics flying around, could the noble Lord, the Minister, could the noble Lord, the Minister, advised the House of the ratio of advised the House of the ratio of people who arrive, having arrived by small boat, are successfully removed small boat, are successfully removed from the country?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the country? I can say to the noble viscount,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can say to the noble viscount, the figures I have given to the House are accurate figures, which showed the removals. I cannot give showed the removals. I cannot give him immediately, in this discussion, but I will reflect upon that but I will reflect upon that question for him, the ratio of individuals and where they have come from. But I say to him now, we are from. But I say to him now, we are in the position whereby around 35% of asylum claims are rejected, we of asylum claims are rejected, we are trying to speed up the asylum claim system to ensure that we come claim system to ensure that we come to decisions earlier and, therefore, we can remove people with no right to be had.

I will certainly examine to be had. I will certainly examine his comments and, if he is not happy, with the response I give him, there is opportunity further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

downstream for us to debate that. Would the noble Lord give way? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the noble Lord give way? I have listened to so much Track from this side of the chamber, could we please stop right wing nonsense that please stop right wing nonsense that you are spouting. Could we perhaps you are spouting. Could we perhaps hear how many people who arrive by small boat are actually given us either because they have a justified claim?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

claim? Well, the noble Baroness asks a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Baroness asks a question, I can't give her the definitive figure on a small boat arrival asylum claims but I can say, arrival asylum claims but I can say, roughly between 61 to 65% of asylum roughly between 61 to 65% of asylum claims are accepted. 35%, roughly, are not. The exact figures, I can are not. The exact figures, I can reflect on, again, that is the rough figures. What we have to do then, figures. What we have to do then, from my perspective, on behalf of the government, is speed up the asylum claims so that we can make those assessments much more speedily, part of the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is because those asylum applications were not speedily assessed.

Therefore, people have been left in limbo, in asylum hotels, those numbers have grown exponentially from the period of around 215 up to 224. There was a dip before the election but there needs to be a further amount of energy put in to both close to hotels, which we are intending to do, but in order to that, we need to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum, there are separate issues that have been raised by number of noble Lords about ECHR obligations, et cetera, but the government simply believes we need to speed up the claims and the measures in this Bill and, externally, from effective action, future proposals are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment. I thank the Minister for his
18:59
19:00
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 105, after' amendment 105. We know come to a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We know come to a number of amendments which seek to reinsert certain provisions of the Illegal certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act that the government is repealing with this Bill, and the repealing with this Bill, and the intention of these benches is that the government is justifying their the government is justifying their appeal of each of these sections of that act... Amendment 105 would be that act... Amendment 105 would be introduced the duty on the Secretary of state to remove anyone from the UK who meet the following UK who meet the following That they enter on or after this act That they enter on or after this act became law, that they did not come directly from a country where they were genuinely fleeing persecution and that they lack lawful and that they lack lawful immigration status.

There are protections under this section which protections under this section which recognise the specific needs of those who are unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking or those protected by European court measures. This section of the act measures. This section of the act sets out the clear duty of the Secretary of State to remove those who enter the UK illegally. Let us be candid about why this clause matters because control of our borders is not just a political imperative, it is also a moral and democratic one.

We all know that our asylum system is under intolerable strain. The public expects us to take action against those who break rules, jump the queue and undermine the integrity of legal migration pathways. The purpose of this amendment is simple, to create an unambiguous legal duty to remove those who arrive illegally after this act comes into force so that the message is clear that if you enter the UK unlawfully you will not be allowed to stay. This summer, as we have already heard this afternoon, we have seen the strength of feeling that many in communities throughout the UK have towards the illegal migration crisis that this government is presiding over.

This problem is getting worse and without some serious action now it is going to get much worse. By dismantling the legal toolbox on this point, seems to me and to us on these benches to be a poor decision. Further, amendment 1096 to reintroduce the process element of Illegal Migration Act for removals. This section makes it clear that removals must be made as soon as reasonably practicable to a person's country of nationality. A country where they obtain a passport identity document and the country they departed from to reach the UK or a country that is willing to accept them.

These provisions only apply when the said countries deemed to be safe. The amendments are something essential, it reintroduces the clear legal framework for the removal of individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. It sets a reasonable impracticable duty on the secretary of state to ensure removal takes place as soon as possible after arrival -- practicable. In doing so it sets out an unambiguous message that entry into the UK without lawful status will carry consequences.

We cannot have a situation where people are languishing here indefinitely at the taxpayers expense. At the same time, this clause is far from dear Conan -- draconian. It distinguishes between those with designated safe countries and those who may not be. It places clear limitations on the countries to which individuals can be removed. Where a protection or human rights claim is made, the amendment ensures that no one is moved to a country unless it is formally listed and the secretary stated satisfied individual falls under a lawful category of removal.

In short, the system balances are obligations with the public expectation that illegal migration will be addressed seriously and systematically and provides clarity, and avoids legal ambiguity and it gives operational certainty to the home office and sends a signal to the people smugglers that the UK will not be a soft target. If this government believes in deterrence, if it believes in border security, if it believes in preserving the capacity to protect the most vulnerable, then this amendment embodies that balance.

It does not slam the door shut, but it set lawful parameters and makes clear that the UK will not reward those who undermine our rules and ignore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safe routes of migration. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 38 answer the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. I wonder if I could put to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if I could put to the noble Lord the question that the noble Lord the question that the noble and learned Baroness put, that he didn't actually answer earlier in
19:06
19:06
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
amendments. I find it rather odd to read these amendments. I am not party political, I have sat through a large amount of legislation by the last government. The Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act, the Rwanda act. There was a great deal of legislation, but there were remarkably few people actually deported. And there appeared to be within the last year of the last government even less people being deported. There seem to be almost a degree of lethargy.

To listen to the way in which the noble Lord is put forward these two amendments makes me feel to some extent astonished because what they are asking of this government, as far as I can see, is what in legislation they achieved, but in deportation they did not achieve. So they are expecting this government to do with the last government didn't do. Sitting as I do on the sidelines, watching what parliamentarians said and listening to what the opposition says to the government, I find it very difficult to see why the government should have to respond to this.

It really seems to be quite extraordinary. Following on from the -- what the noble Lord is just that, in amendment 109, subclause three, there are four ways in which somebody could be returned. One is a country of which the person is a national. I understand and they understand they would not send the Joung-ah to a genuinely unsafe country. So an Afghan would not go back to Afghanistan I assume. Probably a Syrian might not even now go back to Syria.

Shall we start with a country which P is a national. Contrary to which P has obtained a passport or document. Is that country automatically going to receive this particular person? Number three is. A country or territory in which P and barked for the United Kingdom. Again, is that country, particularly France or Belgium or Holland. Is France going to be expected to take back every person who came back from France? At the moment the government is negotiating a trial pilot scheme to take a few back.

I would've thought the French would simply say certainly not. The fourth one is a territory for which there is reason to be that P will be admitted, that's a sensible proposal, but where is that country? At the moment from what we have heard, there are not likely to be very many countries who would actually want to take the majority of people who come to this country illegally. So I do find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these two amendments astonishing. Is an honour to be able to find

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an honour to be able to find -- follow her who has set out eloquently some of the history to the most recent slew of Immigration the most recent slew of Immigration Act's. I have a more practical question which I would like to ask question which I would like to ask both Lord Cameron, but also the Minister because it relates to the Minister because it relates to the various lists of safe countries. The opposition were going to be discussing their amendment to 120 discussing their amendment to 120 later on, but it is five in later on, but it is five in amendment 129 versus P may be removed to a country or territory etc.

As long as it is listed in the etc. As long as it is listed in the schedule. On that schedule, and 120, schedule. On that schedule, and 120, many of the people -- countries listed where it says in respective men, men will be regarded as safe to go back to that country, already go back to that country, already have severe discrimination against have severe discrimination against LGBT people, including men. Some countries it is punishable by death, countries it is punishable by death, others by imprisonment, but much more importantly's, society feels they are at liberty to attack and to kill gay men.

Can I ask the Minister in the opposition spokesperson, what happens to an individual in that particular position when the generic country is regarded to be safe, but there is one group of people who are clearly not.
19:11
19:12
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
deterrent. I think it's common ground that a deterrent is necessary. The nature of that necessary. The nature of that deterrent may be very much in dispute. Government thinking is dispute. Government thinking is still forming as to what the best way of dealing with this very real way of dealing with this very real problem is. The government needs to come up with a response. It had come up with a response. It had quite a lot of time and opposition in which to generate what it thought was an appropriate deterrent.

It is was an appropriate deterrent. It is now been in power for a year and it appears there is more thinking going appears there is more thinking going on in recognition of the very real on in recognition of the very real problem that it faces. So it does come in my respectful view, have a case to answer as to what precisely case to answer as to what precisely is going to be the deterrent. What is going to prevent what we see in our papers, on our screens, every our papers, on our screens, every day.

The second point I want to make day. The second point I want to make is in relation to amendment 107, the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. I think the Court of Human Rights. I think the Minister during his... There was a great deal of debate in the interim order about the European Court of Human Rights. It was even the most fervent defender of the European Court of Human Rights would be hard pushed to defend the order made by them rejecting a decision of our court or by an unnamed judge, without giving him the government an opportunity to make representations and without having a return date in which in accordance with normal practise a government or any other party has a chance to answer the original order.

This was a flagrant breach of natural justice and this was more or less accepted. So whatever form the government's policy finally takes, it would be well advised to bear in mind what is in amendment 107. To give the government the chance to consider. It's a carefully drawn amendment because it gives the responsibility on the Minister of a crown to consider the appropriateness of the interim measure. There were many debates about whether in fact the European Court of Human Rights even had the jurisdiction to make these interim measures.

So whatever else the government thinks about these particular amendments, amendment 107 ought to be very carefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered I respectfully suggest. Very shortly whether I could just as two things. First I hope the
19:15
19:17
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Would like to echo those remarks. It is essential we do what we can to tackle the fundamental issues influencing the nature of this huge crisis. I have said before, I repeat, there are hundred and 70 million people who are displaced in the world today. And that isn't there. The last government, is not there. This government but that is the reality and people are going to keep on coming, trying to come from places like Sudan that was mentioned in the previous group of amendments.

I attended the All-Party Group on Sudan meeting at lunchtime today, the situation in Darfur is absolutely horrific, it's a place I visited in the past. 2 million people were displaced from Darfur, 2 million. 200,000 to 300,000 people died there. If we were there we would try to leave and make dangerous journeys. Most people who leave Darfur travel through Chard, they tried to get to Libya and the Mediterranean. Most never even succeed in making the journey, they die on that part of the journey.

If they get into the Mediterranean, they probably reached the seabed there is wealth. If they make it to the continent and finally some of them get to the English Channel, and we then took about this being a crisis. This is their crisis as much as it is ours and if we don't tackle the fundamental reasons why people are being displaced, whether it's the nature of incidents the current almost on talks about war in Sudan, that has led to this massive surge in numbers, people leaving that part of the world, and that is reflected in the figures that the government themselves publish about people who are in these boats coming from specifically places like Sudan.

If we don't tackle that, if we don't tackle the root causes this is going to keep coming round again and again and again, however the government of the day may be. That's why I agreed with what was said in the previous group for amendments and react to rate the importance of finding international solutions. The 1951 Convention on refugees was right in its time. It was needed to be drafted in the weight. Start time. But we still need that convention, yes it needs to be rephrased on the committee on human rights has been thinking about this.

Looking at Article 80 of the European Convention on Human Rights which the noble Lord the Minister and others have referred to. These things are capable of being examined as noble Lord the Minister has said again and again this afternoon. They can also be reformed and their nine countries, countries like Denmark, that wrote to the European and the Council of Europe, they, they sent an email,. And I think Lord German is right from a central position in pointing out it was perhaps not the most courteous of fruits but the fact was those nine countries, Poland was another, these are not in a brawl countries, there not led by people who have hatred of European institutions but they were arguing that the time has come for international action to be taken by countries collectively to re-examine the things that we have signed up to 8 if they offered for the present time.

One of the thing I want to say, really to those who have moved these amendments today, we have heard a lot about the reminder -- reminder macro. At the heart of that was the suggestion that it would be a deterrent but it would also be safe place was looking again at Rwanda, to see what the situation is, the US State Department in its human rights assessment of Rwanda, just a few weeks ago said, Rhondda is raising arbitrary or unlawful killings, torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, arbitrariness tour attention, transnational repression against individuals in another country, serious abuses of conflict, unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by government supported armed groups, serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists and censorship, trafficking in persons, induced forced labour and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labour.

This is Rwanda I'm talking about. That is the United States State Department finding within the last few weeks, or Human Rights Watch which made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review recently, they reported on the use of torture and other ill- treatment of detainees from 2019 to 2024. I would also add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression which is with the noble Lord Lord, also identified Rhondda as one of the countries responsible for transnational repression -- Rwanda.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last but not least, we can't forget about the importance of full. In atrocities, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, then 23 Republic of the Congo, then 23 raging on across the DRC, the All- raging on across the DRC, the All- Party Group, we published in the report on the abuses perpetrated by report on the abuses perpetrated by that group. Let us be careful what we wish for. Let's understand the nature of the countries we say are nature of the countries we say are so people were we can send people, where they will be able to have good where they will be able to have good prosperous and decent lives, let's be realistic and honest about the nature of these things.

The noble Baroness Lady Brinton wanted us we Baroness Lady Brinton wanted us we will be getting to Amendment 110 from the Official Opposition which from the Official Opposition which is about lists and indeed more about countries that are on that list. countries that are on that list. Rwanda is on that list I just want Rwanda is on that list I just want members of the House to do what Lord Deben said, which stop blaming one another. Trying to score physical another.

Trying to score physical points, realise this issue is being exploited by people who have no exploited by people who have no great love of democracy, who have no great love of the rule of law undertaken people onto the streets and capitalising on this crisis and if we don't find solutions to this, then I fear for the stability of our communities, the dangers to law and, and indeed to the very vulnerable people who all of us I think in this House are trying to protect.
19:23
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful two noble Lords four the two amendments, 105 and 100 and the two amendments, 105 and 109. A slight apology, the confusion over the vote that we had on clause 38, I inadvertently started to discuss not just clause 38 but alas that of discussions we had, some of the arguments on 105 and 100 and 105 and 107 because we drift into that inadvertently. Apologies to the noble Lords, if I repeat some of the arguments here today.

Can I just start by Lord Deben, it's a very sensible suggestion, if I may say so, that he has made. These are complex difficult issues. We have an inherent instrument on July 5 last year, we took office, we have to deal with. I'm not seeing to make political capital. I want to have solutions was solutions to have a fair and effective migration system, to speed up and ensure we deal with international relations on asylum to remove those people who have failed the asylum system, to remove foreign prisoners who have abused our hospitality and privileges of being in this country, to ensure that we have a thriving economy and ensure that we meet above the skill sets that we need for the United Kingdom to succeed and where we have entrepreneurs and others who can bring skills to this country.

As has been mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Alton, there are many forces outside of this House who seek to divide the United Kingdom, to exploit these issues, and it is imperative that we find concrete solutions to do so. And one of the concrete solutions is the very point the noble Lord Alton has made, which is how do we deal, echoed again by the Liberal Democrat frontbenchers. How do we deal with the final of pressures driven by terrorism, starvation, war and poverty? And people who do make that journey, and do claim that asylum, very often have faced challenges that I could never imagine they would have faced and we need to have international operation because the United Kingdom cannot solve those issues alone and that is why my right honourable from the Prime Minister has met with 51 countries in May of this year, has discussed with former European partners who are still at neighbouring countries, in France, Belgium and Holland what the solutions can be, is working with the Germans and want to have international action to stem the flow through other bodies of people removing themselves from their home nations to seek asylum wherever they might seek it, so that important issue.

The noble Lord forks also mentioned the deterrent, I don't want to repeat the issue today but I'm trying to set out in our discussions before the House today, the range and menu of measures that we are taking which we believe are going to add to that deterrence. The deterrence also demands that we do take action against the criminal gangs that are leaching off that misery and poverty, and desperation, to ensure that they enrich themselves by criminal action and that is why again we need international corporation, on a range of measures, to focus on criminals who are using this to exploit people who are in a very vulnerable position.

And that may not as of today, the deterrent that potentially the previous government thought of and there was but I think it is more effective than the deterrent of the previous government deterrent of the previous government thought Nepal was. -- Thought Rwanda was. I think again, Baroness Butler-Sloss, take a contribution very seriously. For a duty to remove to be effective there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are prodigal difficulties in proceeding with that removal and host country needs to agree to accept those people.

That is the fundamental challenge that I put back to the noble Lord Cameron, and again, in the spirit of Lord Deben's instructions to the House to deal with this in a sensible and noble way. I'm not seeking to make difficulties for Lord Cameron, I simply put to him that the impact of the measures on 105 and 109 would be that we have to proceed with the removal to place where there is nobody to remove them too. That is the fundamental flaw in 109.

And again, I do say to him, what I said in response to the general debate on clause 38, that we have removed people who are unlawfully in the UK, we have seen that increase in failed asylum seekers being removed, we have seen an increase in foreign national offenders, have given percentages to the House in every series of amendments we have had today so I won't give them again now. The government aim is to deliver a long-term, critical my credible policy to make sure we have a functioning immigration system.

It means occasionally we will have to move along and examine things in August and September that we haven't considered yet go. That is because the situation changes, situations change, politics need to change, but the measures in this bill repeal an unsuccessful scheme and try to put in other measures to meet the deterrence of noble Lord wishing to see. I urge the Lord Cameron of Lochiel to withdraw his amendment and to examine further in detail the proposals that we are bringing forward to the House in order to achieve the objectives we both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

share. I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and I take very
19:30
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
seriously my noble friend Lord Eben's comments about humility and . However we are a party of opposition and we remain firmly of the view that the illegal migration created a framework that was real, gave our order system structure, clarity and good my credible and we did so because we recognised that the status quo was unsustainable and deterrence without enforcement is meaningless. That is why we pursued the Rwanda scheme so rigorously and still defended as a deterrent.

At the heart of the Illegal Migration Act simple premise that if someone enters this country illegally, and if they do not meet the necessary criteria for protection they should be removed promptly and lawfully. And our amendments in this group possibly to encourage government to reflect on that principle, again and really think before they abandon that framework in favour of something which we say is much softer, something which lacks precision, lacks urgency and lacks the seriousness the challenge the seriousness the challenge If we do not provide our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools they need, we cannot be surprised when that system fails to deliver.

We legislated for that, we recognise the UK needs a clear legal basis to enforce its own immigration laws. With the government now proposes is to remove that structure without a credible alternative. That is not just a retreat, but it is a risk and it will be paid for in public confidence, and operational paralysis and in more lives placed in the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs. We can and must do better. I hope the government uses his chance to make that change, reflecting upon what has been said across her Lordships House, I beg leave to withdraw.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn. Amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by leave withdrawn. I beg to move that the House be resumed, we will then consider the QST and not return to the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

QST and not return to the bill before 2031. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We will have a short pause before call the next
19:33
None Portrait Short debate: Ensuring GPs proactively discuss prostate cancer and free antigen test with men at highest risk (around 7.30pm)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question Question first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question first short Question first short debate Question first short debate --
19:34
19:34
Lord Mott Portrait Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Sadly causes around 12,000 deaths a year. Even more tragically, this number includes many men who are dying needlessly. Dying needlessly due to late diagnosis. Around one in five of those diagnosed or diagnosed too late. When caught early there is nearly 100% survival rate. A remarkable reflection in advances in treatment. Survivability plummets to around 50% when the cancer has progressed to stage IV. Our current approach to testing and screening is falling short.

That's why I secured this debate today. I welcome members from across the House have indicated they wish to take part. I support calls for a targeted screening programme for high risk men. I believe that over 135 members in the other place have expressed their support, as have many noble lords. And importantly, so have the vast majority of GPs when surveyed. As well as many of the patient and campaign groups, including prostate cancer research, and Prostate Cancer UK who I must think for their support.

It is also important to think the daily telegraph and the daily mail for raising awareness by taking up the campaign. The national screening committee is currently carrying out its review. It seems clear to me that the introduction of MRI and new techniques alongside the traditional PCA test go a long way to addressing concerns about the accuracy of a PCA test alone. And the risks of the diagnostic process. The all party Parliamentary group on prostate cancer yesterday published a report that effect, highlighting the progress that has been made in reducing the risk of over diagnosed -- diagnosis -- over diagnosis and treatment.

I hope the noble Baroness can offer an update on this when this is expected to conclude. And what are they doing to ensure there is no further delay? I also want to note the longer-term work, including the 42 million pound transform trial. That was announced under the previous government that can further add to the evidence base and is a huge step forward. Yet I have not chosen to make either of these the focus of today's debate. Because this issue is too urgent to wait and I want to focus on what we can do immediately to stop men needlessly dying.

Whatever the outcome of the national screening committees review we need to change the guidance we give to GPs. At the moment we leave it to men to proactively request a PCA test from their doctor and we actually prevent GPs from raising the issue. Even without men who are at the highest risk. Men are already more likely to be put off a visit to the doctor. I must admit, I know this from personal experience. So how realistic is it to have a system that means a man must proactively find out his risk.

And then be chasing his doctor for a prostate cancer test. It means only those with sharp elbows or who are highly skilled in navigating the health system are getting the tests they need. It is bad enough across the board, but such an approach also entrenches health inequalities, leaving high-risk groups, particularly black men, those with family history and men in deprived areas, seriously disadvantaged. This guidance was well-intentioned when drafted, but it is now out of date. This could cause pain and bleeding and came with the risk of infection, but as I noted earlier, the introduction of MRI and new biopsy techniques have been transformational.

Diagnosing prostate cancer has never been safer and more accurate. When combined with the very serious consequences with the very serious consequences of late diagnosis, an update to guidance is justified. Allowing GPs to have proactive discussions with high risk men about their right to a free PCA test does not mean that everyone will choose to have a test. Indeed, allowing doctors to have proactive conversations could in fact help reduce the overall proportion of over diagnosis and over treatment. This is because GPs can only be proactively raising the point with those most likely to be diagnosed with aggressive cancers.

If we want to say we have a policy of informed choice, then let's make that real. Don't leave men to have to do their own research. Let their GP talk them through it, let them guide men on the risks and benefits and let's make the system one that does not entrench health inequalities. Will the noble Baroness the Minister today give a commitment to revisit the guidance given to GPs through the prostate cancer risk management programme to allow them to have proactive conversations with high risk men? In conclusion, there is much more to do to stop men dying needlessly of prostate cancer and go well beyond the scope of this debate today.

From supporting research, investing in our diagnostic infrastructure and outreach through effort like the model which recently made an appearance in Westminster and the excellent work that has been carried out by Professor Stephen Langley at the Royal Surrey NHS cancer centre in Guildford with a trial that was run by Surrey and Sussex NHS cancer alliance, and I certainly do hope that we have a targeted national prostate cancer screening programme once the national screening committee completes its review. Irrespective of the committee's decision, we can take action today to end the observed practise of GPs being prevented from raising prostate cancer checks with men at the highest risk.

I urged the government to take this forward without delay and I look forward to the debate and hearing from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Baroness the Minister. I think Lord Mott for initiating
19:41
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
this debate -- thank. Some of my comments are shared by Lord Winston on whose behalf I also make this comments as he is in hospital with a broken leg, but he is doing OK. I agree with the comments that was made about identifying and offering the PSA test for high-risk patients that he mentioned. My comments are therefore not about the GPs role in offering the test to high-risk patients. High risk men who are at risk of prostate cancer.

My comment is mostly based on using PSA is a test for screening purposes. It is a test which has a fairly high degree of sensitivity, but a low degree of specificity. Which means the rate of false positive and false negative is much higher to be used as a screening test. I agree some of the trials being carried out in one that mentioned in Surrey Hospital and others in Europe and the United Kingdom may help us modify the guidance that could be given based on the results of the study and therefore could be targeted to a wider group of people.

What we need is a test that is much more reliable, easily carried out and is much more accurate. Such a test that was developed by cancer research Institute which uses a spit test and diagnoses the DNA of 130 different diagnoses the DNA of 130 different profile DNA of 130 different modifications. A high degree of sensitivity much higher than PSA and a high degree of sensitivity. In a model trial it would identify nearly 13,000 patients, the same number of deaths that occur per year in low- grade prostate cancer.

It's a test that requires further trials to see because easily administer it may become part of a wider screening programme so we much be -- must be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much more aware. The keyword in my noble friends very important question is
19:43
19:45
Lord Taylor of Warwick Portrait Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men aged over 45 in England. Secondly, there are higher risks of prostate cancer linked to ageing, Blackman and family history. Third, early diagnosis is critical. Survival is nearly 100% when detected early, but drops to around 50% at stage IV. Yet one in five men, that is 10,000 annually, are still diagnosed too annually, are still diagnosed too late. Fourthly, that despite these facts and earlier warning signs, there are still no UK-wide screening programme.

My first question of the noble ministers what analysis of other nations prostate cancer treatment is the government carrying out and have they come to any conclusions as to the way forward The noble minister set out what action the government will take to ensure high-risk men who requested PSA test are never refused in line with current policy? What conclusions has the government reached as to the most effective method of PSA screening as a result of the transformed trial launched in May of last year? Bearing in mind the reluctance of some men to split themselves to rectal examination what assessment has the government made of the barcode one study on the early detection of full state cancer using saliva samples to identify high-risk patients? Lastly, when will the UK National screening committee be announcing the conclusions and recommendations of the transformed trial? The national screening programme for men at high risk of prostate cancer is long overdue stop national screening will radically improve the fatal prostate for it to late.

-- The fate of prostate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Biopsy wasn't much fun. Stocking those steps, my dignity dangling in
19:47
19:49
19:50
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
this debate. Thanks to the noble Lord Lord Patel for pointing out we do need better diagnostics with better specificity and better sensitivity. We will aspire for a new generation of diagnostics but we do have to live with what we have got today and my noble friend Lord Dobbs pointed out timely assessment, absolutely the most urgent thing. If you are developing state cancer and that is why I would like to address the question of risk aversion, culture I'm afraid to say does hold back timely intervention.

The evidence suggests that too often, doctors intolerance of uncertainty is directly associated with diagnostic delays and errors, sidelining informed choices for patients, instead for the psychological comfort of clinicians. The NHS culture, too often in fertilisers patients. In modern life are used to making 35,000 decisions a day. And this just in patients can't handle the complexity of modern tests, or the idea that diagnoses may be reversed or can't stand the pressure, of diagnosis, is frankly absurd.

And yet studies reveal wild variations in PSA testing between GP surgeries, driven often by individual buyers, not by science, and this lottery is completely unacceptable. This is a systemwide problem, not just prostate cancer. Early detection of disease is absently vital if we are going to turn around our national health disaster. We need risk-based screening, we need mandatory GP engagement and we need accountability for delays. Therapeutic privilege is something that should be dead and buried and patients deserve informed choices and agency.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a doctor I have witnessed many men living with prostate cancer and cared for them. Has been happening over the last 30 years to see the dramatic improvement in good
19:53
Baroness Murphy Portrait Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-
-
dramatic improvement in good survival from prostate cancer. My own husband was treated successfully for an aggressive prostate tumour in 17 years ago following an entirely fortuitous PSA test. But as we have heard, PSA testing as noble Patel has reminded us, is not perfect, surely it would be superseded soon by something better. The 20% reduction in mortality by screening surely is one very well but at a very high price of the side-effects of treatment of surgery and radiology in terms of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction which very few neurological services in the UK take seriously enough to treat even though they can be successfully treated.

Going back to the PSA test, there are now risk calculators to help GPs and patients to assess whether the test is whether it but as it's already been mentioned, by Lord Mott, patients, male patients do not go to the GP unless they are forced to, and they have got symptoms. They don't like to go through the 8 o'clock scramble, how many of us do? But it seems to me that we are likely in these discussions, from the discussions we need between patients and the risk GPs, even though theoretically we have got universal registration with GPs, which should be perfect concepts for developing the system.

GPs will not do it unless there's money in it. And it seems to me that if we could include this proper screening with risk calculators, with GPs in the coiffed points, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would have solved the problem. Unable to speak today only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unable to speak today only because of a chance discussion 18 years ago during a general health years ago during a general health checkup the USA -- I'm able. This
19:55
19:57
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
it is their loved ones who also suffer. I welcome the review by the National screening committee and I look forward to its conclusions but look forward to its conclusions but in parallel there must be change in the guidance given to GPs, to ensure the guidance given to GPs, to ensure men at the highest risk are informed of the risk and offered a PSA test. If the screening committee decides If the screening committee decides to recommend targeted screening which I fervently hope it will, it will take years to implement, it's will take years to implement, it's crazy that current NHS guidelines prevent GPs from discussing the disease with those who are most disease with those who are most likely to have the disease and late diagnosis of incurable cancer.

The diagnosis of incurable cancer. The system benefits men who are aware and able to interact with doctors entrenching biological and societal inequalities. It cannot be right that it is awareness not risk that determines who gets tested. This Relates in a quality and leads to Relates in a quality and leads to death. Surely if the GP is in front of a black man or a man with a family history of the disease they should say, have you thought about a test for prostate cancer? Lord Patel and others have rightly said that PSA testing are not always accurate and yes we need better tests but in and yes we need better tests but in the meantime we have got PSA tests so let's use them because targeting testing safely.

Raising awareness is critical and I pay tribute to that wonderful work of charities like Prostate Cancer UK with its great campaigns and whose badly usually wear. I had the Minister to work closely with those charities to embrace the research that they are undertaking all at the time and I look forward to positive responses from my noble friend the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also welcome the noble Lord for
19:58
Lord Rogan Portrait Lord Rogan (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
initiating this timely debate. Prostate cancer is now Northern Ireland's most common cancer and yet is the only major cancer without a screening programme. According to latest statistics, more than 1,300 and are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year in Northern Ireland. And with almost 300 and dying annually from the disease. At present more than 12,000 men are living with and after prostate cancer in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I am one of them. -Several other medical conditions were extremely wakeful for the national health in Belfast for the treatment I received and I pay particular tribute to the consultant, Mr Benson, and others for enabling me to be with you here this evening.

We do not have a screening programme it must be pointed out that these do exist in some countries, including Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with many other nations including the Republic of Ireland conducting pilot schemes. That said, the UK you can request a PSA test aged 50 or over.... Educated in Northern Ireland went public on his own stage for prostate cancer diagnosis he said that in the continued absence of a screening programme he advised men to go and demanded.

I fully endorse that. Mr Malik and is planning to join six times Olympic cyclist, list Sir Chris Hoy who himself was diagnosed with stage IV. Cancer two years ago, on a charity bike ride to raise money for the cancer charities and raising awareness. I wish both men well with the heroic endeavours and with their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treatment. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. But the
20:01
20:03
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
My story is slightly different to the noble Lord. A few months ago I had an elevated PSA and the surgery where I go, which is run by the excellent doctor, within 36 hours put me on a cancer pathway and offered me an MRI. I was absolutely amazed by this efficiency. However, the news, I'm glad to say, was good. But it was the third time I had had an MRI. Because my prostate is obviously a rather energetic creature my PSA levels seemed to be quite high.

We have now had to adjust what should take me for another MRI. But as the noble Lord said, there are concerns here. If I can make a constructive suggestion to the Minister to take back to her department, one of the things I have found and was other men, and I don't know if the two GPs would agree with us, is that men are often not told to desist from energetic exercise prior to this test. Sport, tennis, running, and sexual activity.

Because that also gives a false reading. My suggestion would be that that needs to be accented a bit more, that people coming away from a PSA test should be told that that is something which could raise the prostate specific antigen. I would like to finish on saying how amazing it was to be given this MRI, although it was the third one I've had and I more or less have to say, do you really want to do this? Do you want to spend NHS money on someone who has been told twice that there is, thank God, no real problem.

Having said that, I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

profoundly grateful. Thank you for securing this debate. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer last February. I had
20:05
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
prostate cancer last February. I had no symptoms, I was going for my yearly health check at my local GP surgery. It was only a nurse that suggested that the test might be appropriate because of my age. It came back positive and as Lord Dobbs said in Lord Watson, it is not a dignified process. When you get the diagnosis, frankly you don't care at that stage. In terms of the reasons why, this is not been offered, let's go through them.

One, there's the PSA test, I accept that, but I'm sure the three of us have just talked about our own experiences would rather have had a chance of that test rather than nothing, which would be the alternative. There are PSA tests and saliva tests and other things, but we have to have a screening programme which targets those high risk groups. I think education is also going to be important, a national education programme on this. I think the other thing from the NHS's point of view that I have to say, is the national screening committee.

I campaign, along with my noble friend Lord Watson in the other place around cardiac risk in the young. Asking for screening of young people in active sports. The same excuses we use then to resist that has been raised for prostate cancer. Yes it's a very anxiety and stressful point when you get the diagnosis. Thankfully my treatments going well and it's down to the incredible people we have in our NHS who work hard on all of our behalf. Can I just finish on this, let's look at the economics of this.

If we are going to help reduce cost and the NHS, we have to put more money and effort into prevention. This is about prevention input very crudely, if we have early diagnosis and treatment, that's not only saving NHS money, but also helping people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a positive and active life. I join with noble lords and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join with noble lords and paying tribute to Lord Mott for
20:07
Lord Kempsell Portrait Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
paying tribute to Lord Mott for containing -- convening this business and discussing an issue which is vital in order to save the lives of men across the UK. I think we are really blessed in this House to have eloquent noble lords who shared their own personal experiences of diagnosis and treatments. Obviously men advocating about the importance of diagnosis, testing in the fight against prostate cancer is such an important part of advocacy across treatment and will definitely help to raise awareness.

We are blessed to have those advocates share their experiences in this debate. Before the Minister responds and Frontbench contributions, I will limit myself to one point which is to give a voice to younger men in this debate. All too often when prostate cancer's thought of its thought of an issue that only affects older men. As the longest-serving member I think of your Lordships House, on behalf of younger men everywhere, I would just point out that those young men are ordering private PSA test at a higher rate than ever.

It's all very well for younger men who have the means and awareness to do so, but obviously that's not the case universally. We need to revisit the guidance that doctors shouldn't raise the issue of prostate cancer with men under 50 if they are non- symptomatic. I will also echo the incredulity that's been expressed across all sides of your Lordships House about the other aspect of that guidance, that even for men over 50, there needs to be a proactive effort made to engage in a conversation about the risk of prostate cancer.

Let doctors the doctors, let them treat their patients, they know their patients better than those who write healthcare guidance. Can I urge the Minister to visit that question in her response.
20:09
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Many men and their families should be grateful to the noble Lord Mott for this debate which will increase the profile of prostate cancer and illustrates the need for screening. We have heard moving stories about prostate cancer. I have a very strong and close relationship with a friend from my university days, some 45 years ago. Several male members of this group now have personal experience of prostate cancer. Thanks to screening, early diagnosis and the latest treatments, most of them are OK.

One close friend, who was my age, has advanced stage for prostate age, has advanced stage for prostate cancer. The very latest, in experimental treatments, helping to keep him going for a few more years than we dared hope. He was unlucky because he had screening, but the disease developed rapidly and between screenings. -- In between between screenings. -- In between screenings. The experience he says is why is for PSA tests now when I can, sometimes when have other blood tests concerned with diabetes.

We've heard how some GPs are discouraged from discussing this threat with some of those at highest risk. The risks are highest with black men and those with a family history of the disease. In those from the most deprived background are almost 1/3 more likely to be diagnosed with late stage incurable prostate cancer. The PSA screening test is not perfect by any means. We need, as in one weekend to move to saliva spit test. And use multi-parametric MRI.

In the meantime, it seems that we should get GPs to proactively offer PSA testing two men at high risk. It will save lives and I hope people are listening.
20:12
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
And I begin by thanking Lord Mott for securing this important debate and sharing some of those startling statistics. Can I also think noble lords who contributed today and shared their personal experience. Time constraint prevent me from naming them all. I hope noble lords will forgive me if they've heard this before, but when I worked in Belgium a urologist advised me men over 45 should seek an annual prostate cancer test. So when I came back to the UK I asked my GP about this and he was dismissive.

Suggesting I asked for a PSA test at my next blood test. When I did so, the nurse asked me if I was sure I wanted one and to quote her, they are not very reliable. Given this attitude, from some, not all medical staff, it's not surprising the data I looked up today showed prostate cancer incidents in Belgium below the ukase. Let me be clear, I understand concerns about overdiagnosis of what is termed slow-growing or localised or benign prostate cancer which when unnecessarily treated may lead to bowel issues.

I also understand concerns about misinterpreting data from enlarged prostate. And these are important points to bear in mind. Surely they should not be at an excuse for reluctance or inaction by some clinicians, especially given the alarming racial disparities mentioned by a number of noble lords. Can I also welcome the Minister back to her place after recent absence. But in doing so, ask questions. Given the emphasis on sickness to prevention, how does the government intend to raise awareness of checking for prostate cancer, particularly in those affected communities.

Some will of mentioned trials, some introduced under the last government will stop there also reports of test. We also have to be careful of what we read in the media, but some suggest up to 90% accuracy in detecting prostate cancer. Can the Minister say any more about these trials at this stage and perhaps some of the evaluation that's been ongoing and if there's any rough estimate of a timescale for a definitive test that we can all have confidence in. Finally, given the concerns that have been raised, what guidance is available now for medical practitioners.

Maybe the PSA, the PC and others. How do we ensure that patients can be encouraged to come forward, but also how can we be sure that prostate cancer is given the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attention it deserves? This has been an extremely
20:14
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been an extremely valuable debate on what is a very important matter and I find much to important matter and I find much to commend itself within the point that noble lords have made. I'm grateful to Lord Mott for bringing this debate forward, but also for his work in raising awareness of prostate cancer and his continuing campaign. Let me say at the outset we are committed to finding a solution, we are committed to working at PACE on research, testing and treatment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall for his welcome back to the Dispatch Boxes for me and how much I missed all of his questions and all questions in your Lordships House. It's a pleasure to be back. This is an important debate for my return. May I think noble lords for sharing their personal experiences, either personal experiences as Lord Dobbs did about his own experience and my noble friend, Lord Watson and others. But also, those as my noble friend Baroness Royall said, it is also those who are close to those who are directly affected.

I think her for raising that point -- thank. It is the case, too many men are dying of prostate cancer. Indeed, as many have said, any death from cancer is have said, any death from cancer is Me speak first to our government publishing of a national supplant later this year which will have patience at its heart. With our goal to reduce the number of lives lost to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer. And to my noble friend Lord Beamish, this will, I can assure him, provide a specifically focus on prevention and early diagnosis, very much in line with the government's health mission to shift from sickness to prevention.

And we have been listening and co- designing the plan with members of the public, health workforce, charities, academics and other partners, and I also want to express my thanks to the cancer community for working tirelessly to advocate for change. I can say that my Mabel friend the Baroness Royall that we do work very closely with charities including on the matter of research which I will come to shortly. I would like to thank everybody who contributed to our Call for Evidence on the national cancer plan, it received over the thousand responses, these are now being analysed -- over 11,000 responses.

Whilst we continue to invest in the all-important research throughout delivery on the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and I should say last available data in the noble Lord referred to investment by former governments, as well as the government, that in 2023/24 the government invested over 100 that in 2023/24 the government invested over £133 million in cancer research. I would say that having heard the very real concerns regarding prostate cancer screening, that is why this government has road in behind the foot to million pounds trial which the noble Lord Lord Mott trial which the noble Lord Lord Mott and other noble Lords refer to £240 million trial.

We have invested 16 million into finding better ways to detect prostate cancer in men without symptoms which has been at the substance of this debate and I have listened very closely. I can say to noble Lords including the noble Lord Lord Patel and the noble Lord Lord Rennard, transform trial will compare different screening test options and that will include MRI scanning, genetic testing through the spittle saliva test, and also PC testing. All of the Zapata of that trial and to the noble Lord only, and I'm grateful that he reminds us of a point that should never be forgotten, that black men have double the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and therefore I can assure your Lordship's House of the transformed trial that use that one in 10 of those who are invited to participate in the trial are Blackman and this will establish an evidence-based reduce the increase and unacceptable risk of Blackman dying from the disease.

The UK screening committee, and there has been much discussion about that today, does work closely with transform this in new evidence as it becomes available. This ensures that prostate cancer policy and action is at the forefront. An Prostate Cancer UK anticipate the initial findings will be within the next three years whilst the trial will run for over a decade. If I could refer to some of the points that the noble Lord Lord Taylor made, I have made reference to when Transform will deliver results but there has been questions also from the noble Lord Lord Patten about the matter of devolved administrations.

And I can say that keeping close contact on this very important issue but of course as noble Lords will be aware health policy is a devolved matter and currently a nation within the United Kingdom that is offering a prostate screening programme. However, important to say that NICE the Scottish equivalent have detailed guidance being used across the UK and the noble Lord Lord Taylor, the barcode test as part of transform and it may be a good test indeed but we have to be sure that it's a good predictor of disease before going forward.

So if I could refer now to PSA tests, PSA tests absolutely do have a place in men's healthcare. And where the test works best is in men with symptoms of prostate cancer. It also works in men who have had prostate cancer treatment to assess if the treatment has been effective. And in surveillance men, who have been successfully treated for prostate cancer. And the core of the debate today has been on GPs, although we have also talked about screening and I will come unto that.

My Lords, many GPs do want to and indeed do inform men, particularly those at the highest risk, about prostate cancer. Health awareness is absolutely crucial in making decisions of part ones own health and I absolutely hear the point which would be part of the consideration of the men's Health Secretary which we will see in due Secretary which we will see in due course -- men's health strategy. Following the consultation and Call for Evidence, but the reluctance men may have to come forward on health matters.

I think that is an understood thing that cannot be understood thing that cannot be ignored. There has been quite a few comments about GPs not being able to raise matters, not being able to offer tests as. And that noble Lord Lord Mott physically raised the prostate cancer risk management program. In respect of allowing GPs to have proactive conversations with high-risk men. And a number of lords, noble Lords, have raised this including noble friend Lord Watson, noble Lord jobs, my noble friend Lord Beamish, and that noble Lord Lord Patel and the noble Lord Lord Kirkham, amongst others.

Perhaps I could say that this management program is only guidance. It is aimed at GPs and in terms of their dealing with men, GPs, and I must emphasise this to noble Lords, are not prevented from taking clinical relevant actions that are in the best interests of the patient or from having proactive conversations with patients. The government will consider revising the management program, in line with the outcome of the UK National screening committee evidence review. And it is the balance of benefit of harm even in asymptomatic, high-risk men that is unknown and under review.

And that noble Lord Lord Bethell raised the issue of risk aversion by medics. It is the case that in this case, to be sensible about been cautious about offering PSA tests to men, without symptoms, because the current evidence as we have heard in the evidence as we have heard in the course of the debate, to suggest course of the debate, to suggest I absolutely have regard to that but there are issues to which it's important to refer stop artists that even if there is a cancer present the diagnostic tests which include biopsy and MRI that follow a raised PSA result cannot reliably differentiate between cancers that grow slowly and aggressive disease that requires treatment.

Some slow- growing cancers may never progress to causing any harm in a man's lifetime. And by detecting aggressive cancers there is a risk of leading men into treatments the do not need. Which as noble Lady Baroness Murphy referred to, does expose the men to significant and harmful side-effects including Val bladder constants, erectile dysfunction, and we do expect GPs to use their clinical knowledge expertly, discussing state cancer and showing the pros and cons of PSA so that men can make an informed choice.

I briefly want to refer to the National screening programme discussion. We do know it would improve equity so that all eligible men would have equal access regardless of who they are where they are. And with this in mind, we are seeking a solution. I have asked the National screening committee to clothes looking again at the evidence for a population screening programme and one targeted at specific high-risk roots and I can assure you Lordship's House that the work of the committee is on track, scientific reports were received in August, they are currently receiving expert consideration following which there will be a public consultation to allow the committee to make a recommendation on prostate cancer screening focusing on the essential question of whether the balance of good versus harm is met.

And the noble Lord Lord Mott and other noble Lords who enquired about timelines, consultation is expected to start in this calendar year and will last as usual for three months. My Lords, for me, this has been an extremely important debate. I hope noble Lords get a sense of progress and, and delivery and that I look forward to returning to this point in order that we can save lives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we are not due to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we are not due to return to the bill until 2031 I I beg to move the House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn during pleasure. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
20:28
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-

20:32
20:33
20:33
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I rise I rise to I rise to movements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to movements 106 I rise to movements 106 and I rise to movements 106 and I will speak also to members 107, 108 will speak also to members 107, 108 and 111 standing in my name. These amendments all linked to moments in amendments all linked to moments in the previous group and are aimed at understanding exactly why the government are repealing each of government are repealing each of these clauses. First and foremost, minute 106 rightly acknowledges the unique vulnerability of unique vulnerability of unaccompanied children.

Unlike adults, these children don't have the benefit of parental guidance, support or protection, which fundamentally changes the context in which any immigration or removal which any immigration or removal decision should be made. The exemption from removal under subsection 1 reflects a humane subsection 1 reflects a humane principle for children, especially ones who arrived without guardians require special consideration. At require special consideration. At the same time, the amendment incorporates a balanced direction for the Secretary of State to make for the Secretary of State to make exceptions, at the discretion for the sector state to make this the sector state to make this exceptions.

This discretion is limited to cases of family reunion or removal to a safe place -- state to which the child has a clear connection such as nationality or passport holding. This ensures the state maintains the ability to act in the best interest of the child in public policy without resorting to indiscriminate removals. Amendment 107 brings much needed clarity and accountability to the handling of the European Court of Human Rights interim measures in relation to the duty to remove under amendment 105.

Interim measures often issued to prevent irreparable harm while full hearing is pending and are critical to safeguarding human rights. This amendment rightly recognises that these measures must be balanced with national sovereignty and the government's responsibility to manage effectively. The First Amendment... European court interim measure is a personal responsibility to Minister of the Crown. This personal involvement emphasises the gravity of the decision, ensuring it is not delegated lightly or handled bureaucratically. Such a provision enhances political accountability, requiring ministers to engage directly with complex legal and humanitarian issues rather than allowing automatic suspension of removal without sovereign consideration.

Furthermore by restricting the application of immigration officials, courts and tribunals to give effect to the interim measure, the Minister is chosen not to recognise of the amendment presents conflicting mandates within the system. This is confusing where different authorities might take contradictory decisions regarding removal actions which would undermine coherence and efficiency in immigration enforcement. This provision strikes a pragmatic balance between respecting international human rights obligations and preserving the government's capacity to maintain effective border control. It avoids rigid, automatic enforcement of interim measures that could paralyse immigration functions while still providing a constructive framework to engage with the European courts decisions.

Amendment 108 is a crucial step towards ensuring the duty in amendment 105 is not needlessly huddled and that anybody who enters illegally is remove no matter who they are. It tackles had on abuse in the asylum and human rights claims, a process that can delay removals and undermine the integrity of the immigration system. The amendment makes it clear that for individuals meeting the statutory conditions for removal, any protection claim, human rights claim, trafficking or slavery victim claim or application for judicial review cannot be used to delay or frustrate removal process.

This is vital. Currently the system is frequently exploited the repeated and sometimes frivolous claims, causing prolonged uncertainty. Administrative backlog and resource drain on the Home Office and courts. Declaring claims and admissible at the outset when conditions for removal are met significantly reduces that and sends a strong message of these legal routes are not loopholes for indefinite delay. This also enables faster removal decisions, reserving our ability to control our borders effectively. We've also included a judicial clause in this amendment to prevent them from setting aside and admissible declarations, promoting finality in removal proceedings.

This provides vexatious legal challenges which often ties of judicial resources without improving outcomes for genuine claimants. Finally, minute 111 addresses the question of what support if any is available for individuals whose asylum or related claims are declared inadmissible under these amendments. By amending the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and related legislation, this clause ensures that the withdrawal or withholding of support aligns consistently with the inadmissibility framework. This is essential for legal clarity and operational coherence. Without these amendments there would be a disconnect between the removal of rights to remain in the removal of support, potentially creating gaps or confusion and how support is administered.

The amendment ensures that when a person's claim is declared inadmissible under the new rules, the support framework adjusts accordingly, reflecting the individuals no longer entitled to certain forms of state assistance stop --. It also maintains the integrity of the asylum support system by preventing those whose claims do not meet criteria from accessing support intended for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

genuine asylum seekers. I beg to move. Amendment proposed come after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed come after clause 30 insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. I know that the government did
20:39
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know that the government did oppose vigorously the Rwanda bill and the Prime Minister described it as a gimmick or words to that as a gimmick or words to that effect. I understand that the government's position and I don't expect them to change their mind, but I think the point that is worth making is that because the Rwanda scheme as a whole may not have found favour with the government, it does not follow that some of the provisions in the bill are not appropriate to whatever policy ultimately the government may think is appropriate.

I note something of a moving picture as the Minister has acknowledged. I'm not going to repeat what I said in the wrong group in relation to amendment 107, but I would pay particular emphasis on that particular amendment because that was a pretty obvious excessive jurisdiction on the part of the European Court of Human Rights. This government, whatever the final form of their policy takes in statutory terms, may find that they have a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, an interim ruling which offends natural justice.

The fact that as the noble Lord quite rightly said it needs a Minister before decision is taken to reject, it's an important safeguard, so it's not a question of casting aside and ignoring it, it's considered at an appropriate level, having already gone to the unsatisfactory nature of the interim order that the court made under rule 39, it's important that provision should be inserted whatever form the policy takes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord or the amendment. -- For the
20:41
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
or the amendment. -- For the amendment. The government is trying to ensure we have a properly functioning immigration system in Illegal Migration Act 2023 included provisions which prevented asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting outcome and put impossible pressure on the asylum accommodation with significant costs we have discussed in other groupings to the taxpayer. The act has not largely been commenced and it is this government's policy and I can confirm that we will be not commencing the act as accordingly we have stated in our manifesto and elsewhere.

Therefore, clause 38 repeals the majority of the measures contained in Illegal Migration Act of 2023, including section 2, duty of -- duty to remove an associated provisions. However it's on a blanket approach to repealing the act, the six measures to which the government tends to retain includes provisions that have been enforced and have been identified as having additional benefit. These powers are all ones which is government seeks to see as important tools to allow for the proper implementation of the immigration system to achieve our wider priorities along any other measures were brought forward.

With respect to section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, amendment 106 seeks to retain that. I believe this measure to be unnecessary, the new clause would preserve the power to remove unaccompanied children under 18 in specific circumstances when the duty to remove applies. Section the duty to remove applies. Section 55 which the noble Lord has referred to, and a minute 107, seeks to retain and would provide for a Minister of the Crown to disregard an interim measure of the European Court of Human Rights were the duty to remove applies.

I have heard what the noble Lord says, we have made a judgment that we don't need that provision, therefore it is part of our proposals as part of the repeal of the act. Section 5 of the Illegal Migration Act which amendment 108 seeks to obtain would've meant that asylum claim or human rights claim would be declared inadmissible and would not of been substantively considered in the UK where the person had entered or arrived illegally and had not come directly from a country which their life or liberty were threatened.

It would also have been to the asylum claim or human rights claim would've been declared inadmissible if the pair -- person was from a country of origin which was considered generally safe. If I turn to section 9 of the illegal migrant act -- Illegal Migration Act which minute 109 also seeks to retain, this would ensure individuals whose claims are disregarded as a result of being subject to the duty to remove and disregard of certain claims provisions, which resulted in a Ms May considered earlier such as 105 and now 108 and 109 are only entitled to support in Immigration and Asylum Act, this would align the entitlement to support inadmissible under section 80 or 80 B and it came to that of failed asylum seekers.

This clause is also unnecessary. The sections included in this group of amendments were designed to operate alongside section 2 of the IMA act, which imposed a duty to remove. As we are now removing section 2 and repealing section 2, this group of amendments have no legal or practical effect, leaving them in place would simply create confusion. Repealing the sections is a necessary step to ensure the law reflects the government's policy direction and avoids ambiguity. I appreciate both the comments of the noble Lord and the comments from the Frontbench, but I would on the basis of the comments that I have made, invite noble Lord Davies to which all those amendments.

-- Withdrawal those amendments. those amendments.
20:45
20:47
20:47
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments in this group seeks The amendments in this group seeks again to understand why the government has decided to remove key parts of the legal architecture that we say provided a robust legal we say provided a robust legal framework for dealing with this issue was to amendment 110 6 to reduce a social power that was part of the Illegal Migration Act enables the Secretary of State up date the Secretary of State up date through regulation the list of countries to which individuals can be safely removed.

These are be safely removed. These are countries that meet the test of presenting no serious risk presenting no serious risk prosecution in general, and to repeat a point I made earlier, the test is in general. The provisions test is in general. The provisions in the amendments allow that this to full, with circumstances reflecting real-world developments, legal real-world developments, legal reforms, international assessments, reforms, international assessments, and the capacity to have that list is a crucial part of the architecture of deterrence because the only way we will stop people risking their lives who come here legally as if they know with certainty doing so will not result certainty doing so will not result in a permanent right to stay and in a permanent right to stay and that means removals, swift lawful and safe return to the countries must be a central pillar and to achieve that we need a legal framework that enables such removals to happen and that is what this clause does, it gives the government flexibility to respond to changing global conditions and build bilateral or multilateral returns agreements on a lawful transparent and evidence-based footing and without that power, our capacity to remove an admissible claim is reduced.

It is not about denying protection to the vulnerable, subsection 4 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the legal, social and physical context of any country, and recognising where certain groups may face harm even if others do not, and as I have suggested, this is a balanced evidence led provision which allows us to remove those with no rights to stay, whilst also holding our obligations to those who genuinely need refuge. Amendment 120 works in conference with amendment hundred and 10 and sets out the list of third countries to which have already referred to.

To conclude we cannot reduce illegal migration by making it easier to stay, and reducing it by making clear through law and action that illegal entry will not be rewarded and we hope the government can set out why they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now abandoned that strategy. Amendment proposed, after clause 38 and set the new clause is printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

38 and set the new clause is printed on the marshalled list. I refer to something I was saying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to something I was saying in the earlier groups of amendments, a country at the heart of so much of this debate in previous debates has
20:50
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
this debate in previous debates has been Rwanda and I hope that when the noble Lord Lord Cameron who has introduced his amendments with customary... Coherence, yes. But ultimately I don't think that he has thought through some of the countries whose talking about and he certainly hasn't responded to the points made earlier on about Rwanda. It's not just about Rwanda. It's about generalities and we are required by the obligations we have entered into to get down to specifics.

And I would like to give one illustration of what I mean by that, from another example from this list in amendment 120, the country of Nigeria. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report that has been referred to in earlier proceedings on this bill "on this bill" United Nations and refugees are saying designations of secretaries may be used as a procedural tool, to prioritise or accelerate the examination of applications, and carefully circumscribed situations which is really what I think Lord Cameron was saying to us.

I don't think it's conflict about that. But it does not displace the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim. And the UNHCR notes that the risk of reform in the absence of a divide of individualised assessment is something that is unacceptable so I would refer the noble Lord to paragraph 122. They concluded, we share the concerns that this is not a new issue, it has been around with for predecessor committees, and I look around to Baroness Hamwee, and it says we share the concerns about the predecessor committee but while mistakes...

They considered safe in general does not guarantee the safety of all individuals from these mistakes especially those who are members of a particular social group, facing persecution. Must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution and return to make protection or human rights claim which must be considered on its merits in order to guard against the risk of reform. If the government chooses to bring section 59 into force should radically review the list of safe states with particular consideration of the rights of monitor groups.

The Lord Lord Cameron did accept there would be regular review but I would like him to respond may be further when he comes to reply to the group of amendments later how he looks at the position of annuity groups, for instance in some of these countries. And not just -- and OT groups. Not -- minority groups. Not just those, but also what happens in Cyprus in the country so a country, that may the country so a country, that may be safe, place like Nigeria, in Lagos it may be safe but it may not necessarily be state in northern Nigeria, depending on other aspects of your backgrounds.

How will that of your backgrounds. How will that be dealt with? I have a dislike of these kinds of lists anyway, as a principle, I don't know that they help matters. Should look at every single case, every single country, on the merits of the arguments. These are things we can keep abreast of without having to drop list. Let me give my specific example in the dangers of this old one-size-fits- dangers of this old one-size-fits- all approach, in what can be variable conditions dependent on many issues, everything is I say from minority ethnicity or religion, gender orientation.

It's an issue I raised during the Nationality and Borders Bill when we were debating it, and for BDA 2022, and again during report stage of the illegal migration bill and I refer to Hansard on 5 July 2023. I cited the case of the president of the humanist Association in Nigeria. He had been sentenced to 24 years in prison for so-called blasphemy committed on Facebook. Nigeria is one of 71 countries which, lies blasphemy, as long as those laws exist people face persecution, they face prosecution, they face imprisonment, some as I have said believe that they face the possibility of death, and a push to find safe havens abroad.

A Muslim was murdered in north-west Nigeria because it was alleged that he had blasphemed. I raised the case the lynching of Deborah Emanuel, Christian College of education again following an unsubstantiated acquisition of blasphemy. I raised the case of June Christians in the northern and Middle Belt states and pointed at 82% of Christians killed for their faith in the previous year were in Nigeria. 4998 Christians were slaughtered with 200 murdered during the Christmas services in 2023.

The highly respected voluntary organisation, charity open capital's reports Christians in Nigeria continue to be terrorised with devastating impunity, adoptions for ransom, sexual violence and death, bringing a trail of trauma. I personally met Dominic and Margaret, who were survivors of the Boko Haram Pentecost, were 30 murdered. Margaret's legs were blown off. She wants no nobody had been brought to justice. I asked the then minister who said, we continue to call for those who committed this to be brought to justice and held to account.

They have not been brought to account. Nor have the abductors of another lady abducted on 19 February on 19 February 2018 by ISIS February on 19 February 2018 by ISIS West Africa. Leah was told convert, refused, she was raped, impregnated and enslaved she still was -- is held captive. I promised her mother I would lose no opportunity to raise her case and I have done so a number of occasions with ministers. When I see this as a country but it safe according to the amendment to send back men, I wonder if the men come from that particular religious group, from particular set of views that are unacceptable, or if they come from a group who are defined by their sexual orientation, or happen to them.

The government's own travel advice contradicts the production it is safe, particularly for gay men. He state what it says, same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Nigeria, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison can. Some states observe sharia law which can declare the sex penalty. Same-sex relationships are viewed as unacceptable, this increased threat of attacks, intimidation against anybody who is supporting the rights of the LGBT community. The advice is based on fact and not wishful thinking but adding Nigeria to this list will somehow make it a safe country, we have got to follow facts, not evidence.

Similarly, there are risks including disconnection, and also potentially death. This particularly the issue in the northern states. So no differentiation is made in this list about different parts of the country, no distinction is made according to people's minority status. It demonstrates the dangers of drawing up issues of this kind and I do think the opposition to give this further thought before we are asked to vote on this at reports Road which I hope we won't. -- Report stage.

I'm honoured to follow the noble Lord for his detailed
20:59
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
introduction. I will stop there and briefly go back to 110. I will not briefly go back to 110. I will not repeat what I said earlier on and I would not repeat what he said but I have checked every single country on have checked every single country on the list where it says in brackets in respect of men and all of them have similar approaches, but sickly to gay men that has already been described by him -- particular to described by him -- particular to gay men.

European countries doing gay men. European countries doing that, including Hungary, Slovakia, I went to a place in Bratislava where went to a place in Bratislava where went to a place in Bratislava where a friend of a local person had witnessed her colleagues being shot going into a bar. It includes Moldova and a number of other countries where they are becoming countries where they are becoming extremely intolerant. I do want to extremely intolerant. I do want to go back to 2 110.

The description about the detail of the descriptions in three which starts on the bottom in three which starts on the bottom of page 9 and starts with sex, of page 9 and starts with sex, language, race. A helpful. But they are exclusive. And the exclude key protected characteristics that we recognise and our courts recognise in this country and I wanted to ask the Official Opposition if there was a particular reason they have done that so for example the protected characteristic is religion or belief, not just religion.

There is gender reassignment, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity which is extremely important, not just for adult women but also for young girls who may be returning to a place where young girls are traded The last two our age and disability. I just hope that, should the opposition wring this back to report, that is remedied because the courts here say that these are special reasons why somebody might face a particular problem in their life. I would find it astonishing if we ignored those and said people, particularly when we know there are problems in some countries on the list.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to Lord Cameron for
21:01
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to Lord Cameron for his introduction, the amendments seek to retain schedule 1 list of seek to retain schedule 1 list of countries. And the powers to amend the list of those countries. I think if noble Lords examine the amendments in detail, they will see the amendments are reliant on amendment 105. That has sought to retain the duty to remove, from the IMA, that hinge of these attempts to reinstate the IMA. Without amendment 105, which has been withdrawn, this is really not able to be implemented.

We have had that debate, but I will add to the point. The Bill that we have got does not take a blanket approach, the government has intended and does retain provisions that have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. However, these amendments do not, not now amendment 105 have been withdrawn, they would have no effect, those provisions were introduced for the purposes of the previous government's scheme and we are intending, as we have said, to remove the Rwanda scheme as a whole.

I note the comments of Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord Alton, they make valid points of the country list and the mechanism for that list, it backs up the provisions we are mentioning and from the government perspective as to why we will not progress the amendments before the committee this evening on 120 and 110. As a self- evident, the previous government tried and failed to implement those provisions, it is even without amendment 105 challenging for us to agree to pick up that torch and carry on when the previous government themselves could not do that.

Those policies also brought the system to a standstill, there were thousands of claims put on hold, there was incredible pressure on asylum accommodation systems. There was significant cost to the taxpayer and those are some of the challenges that the new government, the 13-month-old government, is trying to put -- pick up on. I cannot support the amendments that seek to introduce measures through the IMA. This government seeks to repeal the majority of the measures contained in the IMA, including the provisions that these amendments seek to remain.

It is worth noting, for noble Lords, that this list is more restrictive, and where we could remove an individual, the well- established powers to remove that we would have in place. And existing provisions and asylum claims may be treated as inadmissible if the claimant has previously been present in or has a connection to a safe third country where it is considered reasonable to have expected them to have sought protection. We can remove people to a country or territory for there is a reason to believe the person will be admitted.

For the reasons about the 105 and also with a strong, I hope, message to the point made by Baroness Brinton, I would invite the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw the amendment. Can I just ask this, I understand what he said about the list, how what he said about the list, how does a tribunal determine, in an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual case, whether it is safe? Again, I have said to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I have said to the committee previously, that has to be examined individual basis, examples that Lord has given, where country may be safe and actually small may be safe and actually small region of the country might not be or a protected characteristic of the individual might not be, that is a individual might not be, that is a judgement made based on the evidence judgement made based on the evidence put before a tribunal, we will, of course, examine those issues in details but the blanket approach is details but the blanket approach is one that we have -- one which is not appropriate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate. To pursue the point, an individual court has to make an assessment without any guidance from Parliament as to whether, for that individual, particular country is individual, particular country is not safe, with their particular characteristics?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

characteristics? I think it is fair and reasonable for a tribunal to look at those representations accordingly, what we are trying to do in this legislation is remove the effective provisions that have meant that the Rwanda offer was in place under legislation. We are monitoring, as we have to, through the immigration white paper, of the statements, how the practice has been completed and implemented. I will reflect upon the points that Lord Faulks has mentioned in his contributions.

The principal before the committee today is that the list of countries listed, without the provisions we have agreed, RP repealed and without the amendment, are superfluous and backed up by the comments of the noble Lord, they also mean that what is deemed to be a safe country might not be, there are elements that can be examined, and representations made to ensure that people who have either a characteristic or a particular region in the country can make that case that the tribunal that their individual circumstances

**** Possible New Speaker ****

demand a decision not to be removed. I am grateful to all the noble
21:08
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all the noble Lord who have spoken, of course, the Minister is correct, technically Minister is correct, technically having withdrawn, these amendments, moved, would struggle. I feel it is important to reiterate the general point that has been made, the amendments are not rhetorical, they seek to reintroduce practical, enforceable tools that are part of a wider strategy. If I could, I apologise for not addressing the point made by Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, but I think the answer is in amendment 110, it is under discussion.

That is that... The power exercised by the Secretary of state has to be a general one, it has... It cannot take account of a particular individual assessment or scenario, as it stands, in its first... In the first subsection, that is why it says, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there is, in general, that country or territory, no serious risk of persecution. Having made the general point, I would suggest that, thereafter, the Secretary of state is allowed to take into account specificity.

It is allowed to say, for instance, the statement subsection 1 is true of country or territory or part of a country or territory in relation to the description. Already, a country can be divided into constituent part. In subsection 3, the description can include sex, nationality, religion, membership of another group. Any other attribute or circumstance that the secretaries of state thinks appropriate. I would suggest, that allows a particular attribute or characteristic to come into play. She is right, various characteristics do not mirror protective characteristics in UK discrimination law.

There is an absence of disability there... Political opinion is not a protected characteristic but it is included in this list. The catch all in subsection 3 allows that specificity. In conclusion, my Lords...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry to interrupt, can I just raise a point, that has not been referred to in the debate, part of referred to in the debate, part of the country. Is it possible to be assured that if one is returning assured that if one is returning someone to a country where, in one part, there is a problem, that country, through its internal procedures will not move somebody into that part?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into that part? That was exactly the point I wanted to make, the noble Lord referred us to paragraph 1. This phrase, in general, that in itself phrase, in general, that in itself needs to be fleshed out as to what it means.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it means. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their interventions. In general, for their interventions. In general, is a well-known phrase, it is used in the 2002 act, it is used in this subsection, it requires the Secretary of taking a decision and has two generalised. It cannot be... It has to take into account a general view as to whether that country or part of that country is safe. In answer to Baroness Hamwee, I would say, what the part of the country aspect allows the Secretary of State to do is specify, in the list, which itself is an evolving list, whether one part of the country is safe or not.

But, in light of everything said, I'm grateful to all of the contributions, thoughtful contributions, across your Lordships House, I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 111, Lord Davies? Not Amendment 111, Lord Davies? Not moved. Amendment 112, Lord Davies, moved. Amendment 112, Lord Davies,
21:13
21:13
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we all agree that our system must be fair and there must be opportunities for proper dialogue and challenge when decisions are made about an individual's age. That is right and in keeping with our values. It is equally clear and can be argued that the balance has shifted too far in one direction. We have seen repeated last-minute legal challenges with little merit which succeed in frustrating or delaying removals. These are not genuine safeguards, they are tactical devices deployed to prolong a person's estate and undermine the integrity of our borders.

Our amendment 114 1146 to restore the balance which we identified in the government by reintroducing section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. It ensures that factual decisions are made by the appropriate authority and cannot be endlessly re-litigated as a matter of opinion for the court. Legal errors can be challenged, rightly so, but the endless recycling of disputes can no longer come at the cost of our borders. The government will retain the poet currently has to remove those who itself has determined should not remain in the United Kingdom.

If we are to reduce the numbers and regain control of the issue, the government must have the flexibility to act decisively once the facts have been determined. That is the balance we strike, a system that is fair, firm, open to genuine challenge but closed to vexatious delay. Amendment 115 is about ensuring we have the tools to make our determinations on the age of those who arrive here illegally. This information is not a minor detail, shapes protections a person is entitled to, facilities in which they may be placed and the level of safeguarding that must be applied.

To make decisions that are safe, appropriate and in the best interest of both intentional and wider community, we must have reliable information. If someone is genuinely and 18, that will be reflected in a scientific assessment, these methods are objective, evidence-based and independent to political or personal bias. If an individual refuses, it is right to assume they are an adult. If there is nothing to hide, adult. If there is nothing to hide, The government must be able to act on accurate data that means the power to get credible scientific power to get credible scientific The government is removing the set of powers from the remit for the passage of the bill work only discussing I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to update the House what mitigating measures if any the government are proposing on this question.

If they are insisting on moving the powers they already have which were introduced by the previous government. Finally amendment to hundred which was required the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person's age and disapply the requirement for consent the scientific methods to be used. The speak to the Prince by body outlined only that the person and the UK illegally than the government has the right and indeed the duty to understand how old that person is.

If the person in question refuses to cooperate then this cannot be away And removals process. The balance I spoke about earlier can only be reached if these powers are maintained and if the government retains the authority to take action when a person consents to an age assessment or not. These amendments are about retaining the tools the government needs to act decisively on the basis of authoritative information without being hamstrung by that shows just delays the can't afford to slip into a system which removes are paralysed by endless backlogs and serious challenges proliferate and determinations are relit to no end.

We struck the right balance with these clauses when first passed, parent firm, opens a genuine challenge and closed to tactical destruction. If the government really believes removing these powers will have no adverse effect they must explain to the House, otherwise they should reintroduce them so that those by whom they themselves have determined have no right to remain can be removed swiftly and the integrity of our immigration system is preserved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed, articles 38

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, articles 38 insert the new clause the words as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. Arise to support the amendment on age assessment made by the noble age assessment made by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower. I
21:18
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lord Davies of Gower. I recollect that when we discussed these issues in 2023 when we were looking at Illegal Migration Act we had a very good debate and I know that Baroness Brinton was very voluble on this issue and passionate about it as one would expect of her. As we have come to expect, know and love. During the course of the debate. I think the public have moved on and earlier when we debated the previous clauses in this bill we talked about the crisis of confidence, we talked about the lack confidence, we talked about the lack of public support for any actions taken by parties in government, Labour or Conservative.

That crisis of confidence is worse than ever now. I don't think it's improved by anecdotal and media portrayals of people who can amend it, usually young men, who are quite obviously young men and not children, purporting to be children. And using various methods in order to thwart the reasonable expectation of most people that they should be removed because they do not have a right, or they should not be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis as asylum seekers.

Therefore I think that we have to use our common sense here. I do regret the fact that the government seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Baroness Fox earlier said that it was a movable feast and she now is a compatriot of the government in many of the proposals. I know she has a ways been a compatriot of the noble minister, both hailing from North Wales. The point being that we have moved on significantly since we debated it two years ago.

I do think people expect fair and equitable treatment of minors and people purporting to be minors. Therefore we got to use our common sense. Often young men, disproportionately young men, will arrive without any identification they will have disposed of their passports or ID cards and will therefore be in a position to make the case that they are children or very young people, and there is no identification to disprove that notion. Also the appearance of young people who are over 18, facial growth, bone structure, beards et cetera.

Decry the fact that they are allegedly children. And they look over 18, I do know that across the world there is use now of artificial intelligence in order to use the scientific method to ascertain the precise age of young people. So I think the government should look more favourably on these amendments because they were putting the earlier legislation for a good reason. Reason I specifically support both my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth amendment and amendment number 200 is that this is not being done surreptitiously.

It's being done in the open. You will be being done in the open. You will be able to test the veracity of the scientific assessment, you will be able to judge it against international comparators, you will be able to get scientific experts in these areas, of anatomy for instance, to test whether these scientific assessments work. It seems to me a blanket ban reasonable scientific assessment is not the right way to proceed. Particularly as these are going to be a relatively small number of people, there will be a relatively small number of young men timing that they are children.

Therefore it seems to me that if you have a robust scientific regime testing that and also more importantly you have parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the regulations that the Minister will lay before the House for this scientific assessment and method that I do think that is a reasonable position to have. If the government is seeking to persuade the electorate that they are serious and committed to tackling the egregious abuses of our border, and I would say frankly pretending to be a child, forcing a local authority which is often cash-strapped to find you a school place, provide for you special educational statement -- needs statement and other contingent liabilities and funding is an issue of public importance as well as public safety and security.

For those reasons, I know Baroness Brinton is no doubt at the bit to disabuse me of my notions, but I do think on this occasion it is unfortunate that the government and the Minister for whom I have huge respect as he knows, has seen fit to remove this, this provision from a particular belt for no particular reason, he hasn't made the case for why he is doing that, and therefore he needs to think again and hopefully at report stage you may have better news for us.

In the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. To beat the noble Lady Baroness Brinton because I am unhappy about
21:25
21:26
21:27
21:28
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
to introduce my amendment. Amendment 200 and 3H. I'm afraid rather like my last amendment the mysteries of grouping have slightly left me grouping have slightly left me confused. Because this amendment actually doesn't relate to the illegal migration. This is an amendment which I really do offer to the Home Office as a sensible amendment which will save public money and it will be a sensible and useful use of time. I implore the Minister who I know to be a very sensible and reasonable person, to really look at this carefully.

Amendment 200 and 3H refers to the national age assessment Board. The national age assessment Board was set up in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, before I was in this House and I know there are some noble Lords here you remember the debates about that particular bill. This bill which is presently before the committee doesn't appeal any provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act. The national age assessment Board was set up by the 2022 act to bring into the Home Office the system whereby those who claimed to be minors would be assessed prior to these provisions Coming into force, that was done by local authorities and what had routinely been the case was that a person who purported to be younger than 18 who wish to challenge a decision would then judicially review the assessment made by the local authority.

There is a whole run of cases in which that was considered by the court as to what the test should be on judicial review of the social worker's evaluation of what their ages. Of course across the country different local authorities had different approaches. In a case called A&P in the Supreme Court in particular led by the noble Baroness Lady Hale determined that age assessments would not be determined on the usual basis of a judicial review, so a judicial review as noble Lords will be well aware and I'm sorry I am teaching grandma to suck eggs but in case there is an dislike is someone watching doesn't know this, decision on judicial review is normally not taken by the court in a situation where the court will look at the decision afresh, consider the evidence and take the decision for themselves.

Instead what a court does is look at the decision, see whether it is lawful, and it is not unreasonable in the -- public law sense classically does described as being so unreasonable that no decision-maker could have reached that decision, the oh gosh test has been described previously, so what Baroness Hale said in the cage -- case of age assessment that this was a question of precedent fact. The age of the individual. So it should be determined by the consideration of evidence which is incredibly rare of evidence which is incredibly rare That is still the law.

And so what happens today, is that if somebody seeks to challenge the decision of the assessment Board, they go to the administrative court, in accordance with the practice direction, they refer it to the Upper Tribunal and it goes off for oral and expert evidence. The judges have to listen to the evidence and evaluate for themselves what the ages. I suggest, to the committee, that this is not the correct approach and I suggest that for this reason, the national age assessment Board was set up in the 2022 act and has been carried on, sensibly, by this Labour administration to bring in-house the making of age assessment decisions and expertise and provide training to those who make age assessments of those who claim to be under 18, these are the experts in assessing age, these are the social workers...

I see the noble Lady shaking her head, but I disagree, these are the people who know exactly what is going on in a way that, when it was diffused across the local authorities, that was not the case, the assessment Board is the expert body, and as such, the conventional position in public law is that the courts should defer to those expert bodies and only overturn the decisions in the event that they have done something which is illegal.

Or otherwise unlawful, without an assessment of the evidence. With that little bit of background, let's look at the amendment. This is... There seems to be a cross-party point, but it is something that will accelerate the pace at which disputes about age assessment can be resolved and save huge amount of public money and, use the resources that are available to the Home Office to invest in the best way. This clause says, it applies to all decisions taken.

There is an option in rare cases for local authorities to make decisions, those would not be called by this. That is subsection 1. Subsection 2 says it applies only if there is a judicial review of the age assessment decision. And subsection 3, shall the Minister will have seen this, this requires the court or tribunal to determine the application, to determinate application on the basis that the person's age is a matter of fact to be determined by now.

And not by the court. This has the effect of reversing the decision. In light of the new statutory regime which the government has enacted. And, accordingly, as it says, the court or tribunal might only grant relief or tribunal might only grant relief on the decision was wrong or law. And not the consider mentioned in subject one was wrong as a matter of fact what that provision does is restore the law to where it was prior to this and it appropriately reflects the level of indifference to the expert decision makers in this field.

As a result, I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 203H to the government. I am grateful to both Lord Murray
21:35
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to both Lord Murray and Lord Jackson for thinking they and Lord Jackson for thinking they know where I am coming from. Lord Jackson might be relieved to find we have more common ground than he believes. I will start backwards, with Lord Murray's amendments because am happy to have with me the SI on age assessment of asylum seeking minders. And which was on 27th of November. Initially, the Home Office, which I think he was Minster at that point, said her the advisory committee report from October 2022.

The Home Office will not use scientific methods to determine a joy age range, rather to establish the claimed age of the disputed person is possible. Possible is not a scientific fact.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should clarify, it is not using scientific methods, my amendment has nothing to do with scientific methods, the assessment Board are using conventional methods to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identify age. One of the problems is, the social workers are using exactly those techniques, perhaps not in those techniques, perhaps not in full, but they are, what is more, the NN AB social workers are paid through the NN AB by the Home Office, they are not independent, Office, they are not independent, that was the key point, I'm grateful for Lord Jackson's start, he said for Lord Jackson's start, he said the public has moved on, as a former trustee of UNICEF, my priority here trustee of UNICEF, my priority here has to be the protection of young people who are under 18.

An people who are under 18. An arrangement for those where it might not be possible to decide that exactly, we have had many debates exactly, we have had many debates about all that, the issue is not just about satisfaction, the public just about satisfaction, the public might be reiterated by the young men who are clearly over 18 who are who are clearly over 18 who are doing this, the concerns that those of us ringing back amendments on of us ringing back amendments on Monday, want to make sure that it is not happening the other way round, that people under 18 are being deemed to be adults, we know this has happened, I hope the Minister will reassure me, we might see some data on this.

Every time I have asked, there has been no data about you to be 80 and the other way around. That is important for the Home Office, the Home Office needs to understand about provision for those in this very small group who needs to be looked after in a slightly more special way. By the way, not every young person under 18 who goes to school going to need special needs, they might need language support but not special needs.

They might need emotional support if they have come from a war zone but if we are saying that these are waiting assessment as asylum seekers, to something this country ought to be prepared to repent. I am much more cynical about the NN AB being a truly independent and clear as Lord Murray was making out. We will go over this in detail next week. I want to go back to amendment 114 and 115. Young people having no right of appeal contravenes the United Nations declaration of rights of the child.

They must have support in complex issues, particularly in a country where they might not speak the language. Given that when the official opposition were in power, they refused to let young people having age assessment carried over have any access to legal or advisory support, said it was necessary, I have to say, those European countries that do use age assessment have all got independent support for these people from the own process. Particularly, the Netherlands, that was cited by Lord Murray when he was despatch box in the past, these protections are built in because we have a formal duty to look after those under 18 and, yes, it might be difficult to work out some are, but we know most of them.

And I really hope that the first two amendments from, I think, they need to be reviewed and addicting we can support them. Scientific assessment... I can remember when I read the first full report, it is clear, they always talk about Rangers. We know... I don't know about you, I have got a who is six foot four. Actually, we do make mistakes, and I support what lady but a social saying, you can't assume that is right.

If we get it wrong, you have got a young man, usually a young man, who is put into an adult centre and they are at risk and that is on us as a country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady concludes, I applaud the work of UNICEF, I think applaud the work of UNICEF, I think the point that I was tempted to make was that we have to focus our efforts on weeding out those who are efforts on weeding out those who are clearly, as you can see, not reaching the age criteria so that we can focus on those most need to have suffered terror and trauma. Can I suffered terror and trauma.

Can I just take back to the appeals, what is the alternative? If you have an open-ended liberal permissive system, it will be gamed by many system, it will be gamed by many people. Is there not a way that you can have an appeal system, maybe she can have an appeal system, maybe she might want to think about this before she put an amendment down, before she put an amendment down, which does actually pay regard to the rights of children, universal the rights of children, universal human rights of children, but does not allow the system to be gamed by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

endless appeals that take months and years? The problem is, the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The problem is, the amendment says there is no appeal. None. Therefore, that young person, English probably as a second language, obviously this is somebody who will argue they are under 18, they do not even have the right... That Lord Jackson was talking about, and that worries me. I have argued this. Time, actually, I agree, the public are concerned, I have no doubt about that. But are we only concerned with what the public is concerned about or do we not need focus, really, on children who are seeking asylum in this country and can get some help, if we go by, actually the public don't want it, it will all start going away.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems to me that you are balancing two things here. I'm sure balancing two things here. I'm sure the noble Lady will agree, first, the noble Lady will agree, first, clearly a problem arises if a young person is put into adult accommodation. In my submission, a accommodation. In my submission, a bigger problem arises if you put an adult fraudulently claiming to be a adult fraudulently claiming to be a child, into facilities for young people. At that point, there is a significant risk to those young people and so we have, as a House, a significant responsibility in this significant responsibility in this area to ensure that we do not take area to ensure that we do not take people's claims to be young people, which can put other young people in those homes and facilities at risk, those homes and facilities at risk, as a result, it is very important the Home Office has a coherent the Home Office has a coherent system, which they do, and the system is keen of review, of course system is keen of review, of course it is, but the noble Lady will agree, there is a balancing act to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be performed. I am grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, I have argued before, there is a very straightforward answer, which is that you have a smaller group home, or homes, of those who are around the borderline, because the protection we need for the younger ones. Yes, he is right, if we put a load of people in who are under 18, load of people in who are under 18, the young children are at risk. But we do not have to give them the number of children.
21:44
21:45
21:45
21:47
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
The noble Ladies point about proceedings lasting forever. But one mustn't take that point too far. It takes one into authoritarian territory where I think we really should not be going. All the points I would have wanted to make would have been made much better by Baroness Brinton, I vividly remember our 2023 debates. Indeed this whole debate we are in a time warp. We've been here several times and there are no new point to be made.

I remember the ethical, the moral, the practical arguments being debated about scientific methods. I can't remember, I'm sure we did this, but I can't remember whether we discussed the equity of the point that is in amendment 115. Amendment that is in amendment 115. Amendment 115 says that if the young person refuses, because he is scared or whatever, to subject himself to a scientific test, then the law says that he is an adult and a liar.

In equity that seems to me to be a very strange thing to put into a statute book. The process of going to law does take a long time. But it is our tradition and to cut it all short by saying if you don't agree to be tested in this particular way, then you are an adult and a liar, that seems to me to be quite extreme. I can't remember if the point was debated before but I think Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Murray is going to tell me that he answered it in 2022. The liberal Lord Kerslake course right to remember these happy right to remember these happy exchanges. I just wanted to draw his attention to the fact that obviously there are many examples in the law presumptions being made of people presumptions being made of people don't do things, for example the breath test as the noble viscount breath test as the noble viscount observes, and also for example if you don't know comment in a police you don't know comment in a police interview inferences will be drawn.

It's the same presumption system that is made, there is nothing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unusual in the terms of the draft. There was discussion about
21:50
21:50
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for again the amendments which have elicited this discussion. I think there is a central premise that I wanted to put before the committee which is that age assessments as has been proved by the contributions of noble Lords today are difficult areas and no single or combination assessment technique is able to determine age with precision, but there are this was referred to by the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are really serious issues to ensure that if there are safeguarding risks, if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children and similarly there are serious safeguarding risks in treating children as adults.

We have to try to improve the performance on age assessment and to get it right. The government takes this issue with real seriousness and with the importance it demands and we're going to continue to explore with partners how we can improve the robustness of age assessment processes by increasing the reliability of methods used. That leads me to the amendments before the committee today, amendment 114, amendment 1146 to incorporate section 57 of the illegal migration 23 which are subject to repeal into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

The fact we are already repealing that means that we are revisiting again as we are a number of amendments, things the government are seeking to repeal. The provision, Baroness Lawlor referred to this, concerns decisions relating to a person's age and we are bring into effect measures to disapply the statutory rights of appeal in the Nationality and Borders Act which if commenced enables a person to bring an appeal challenging a decision made on their age. Baroness Brinton has referred to the difficulties of that, the provision only applies to individuals subject to the section 2 duty to remove in the IMA which itself is under repeal in the bill.

I know what Lord Kerr has said and I feel I'm going around the number of cycles but the impact of the same, we are repealing the sections, the official Official Opposition trying to put them back in, we cannot put them back in because we are repealing the sections, at the end of the day we are still trying to improve the performance on age assessment for the public and for the immigration system. We are committing -- committed to focusing on delivering long-term credible policies and we will try to ensure that we do that by only retaining measures of the INA which we have assessed to offer operational benefit.

We are repealing most of the measures as I've said cleaning section 2 duty to remove, so therefore sections 57 and 58 relate to age assessments while this assessment seeks to our not workable and irrelevant without the duty to remove. The circular movement continues to move. There are robust processes in place to verify and assess an individual's age where there is doubt, that is what we do so and I again emphasise the Lord Jackson and to the opposition frontbench and Lord Murray and Baroness Lawlor that these are important matters to get right.

But the importance of those is to ensure that where an individual claims to be a child without any credible documentary evidence and where there is a reason to doubt their claim to age, immigration officers will now currently conduct an initial decision on age to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or as an adult. Where there is doubt, and again there is occasionally doubt, that remains following the initial decision on age individuals will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority further consideration of their age in the form of the acknowledged Merton compliant age assessment which is based on the local authority there.

The government is committed to improving age assessment practices to enable all individuals to be safeguarded and treated appropriately, for the very reasons Lord Murray has mentioned. We have retained, as again Lord Murray has referred to, the national age assessment Board which was launched on 31 March 23 by the previous government, is now being rolled out nationally and continues to offer significant improvements and has support now of over 55 expert social workers. His task is to support local authorities by conducting comprehensive age assessments, increasing capacity and putting expertise in the system.

Since it has been launched the total of 77 local authorities are signed up to the work of the NAA be, greater consistency and age assessment practice has now been the case, improve quality of decision- making is there and there are well over 1137 individuals predominantly social workers from local councils, responsible for conducting age assessments and training has received positive feedback from local authorities. Those are all positive things and again I pay tribute to the hands that laid on those regulations and efforts previously or very good positive stuff.

The Home Office with the support of the Department of education has also commissioned user research into age assessment processes with participation from Home Office members of staff, non- governmental organisations, local councils, accommodation providers and others. The Home Office has orally started to impart positive change following research undertaken and we are currently reviewing initial decisions on age training which has been received by Home Office staff for example at the Western Jack Doyle premises in Kent. Amendment 203H which Lord Murray has tabled, that will as has been said by Baroness Brinton and others, restrict the jurisdiction of the court to determine applications for judicial review brought against the decision on age made by the National Board on conventional public law grounds such as rationality, reasonableness and procedural fairness with the court being unable to grant relief because it considers the board's decision on claimant ages wrong as a matter of fact it will also prevent the courts from substituting their own decision on age and this is an important point, this is contrary to decision of the Supreme Court which held that the court is required to determine for itself the age of the claimant as an issue of fact.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For his thoughts, that's the whole point. My thrust of my submission was that the Supreme Court got the law wrong in that Court got the law wrong in that instance because, in the creation of a national age assessment Board is an expert body and its different to the situation that pertained when Supreme Court made their earlier decision which is why the Home Office should trust its own expert Office should trust its own expert social workers and grasp this social workers and grasp this opportunity to accelerate the pace and change the test that the court is using.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

is using. Again we are going to have one of those honest disagreements between us. The context of the amendment, us. The context of the amendment, I'm grateful for the thoughts he has I'm grateful for the thoughts he has This but again, I put to him that the amendment would result in the court treating challenges brought against aged decisions on HB by the board differently from challenges brought against decisions on age made by a local authority. We are going to have to part company on that for the moment.

At least. that for the moment. At least. Amendment 115 and 200 tabled by his Majesty's loyal opposition, the amendments regarding scientific methods of age assessment repealing section 58 of the illegal migration which this bill seeks to do does not affect provisions relating to scientific methods of age assessment which is set out in the NA BA and the immigration age assessments regulation 2024 such as the power to use X-rays and MRI scans. Undertake negative inference into the great ability of a person who refuses to consent whether there are no reasonable grounds for refusing consent.

Amendment 200 looks to have consent. Amendment 200 looks to have Section 52 within six months regulations have orally been made under this power, it also places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 1, sorry section 58 under the IMA the spell looks to repeal that clause again, although amendment 115 would reintroduce that section has a clause in this bill, we are going round again in the circle of life on the amendments in this bill. -- This bill.

In relation to the case anyway the Secretary of State would not make regulations the effect these and seek to achieve unless and until satisfied that the scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent will be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods do not currently meet this threshold and again we can have a debate about the ECHR but that is where the government currently is and the government as well will continue to explore latest developments in things such as artifical intelligence, age assessment technologies to ensure we have the most accurate information available and facial age estimation also is promising, potentially cost-effective, allowing early assessments and it could produce useful results far quicker than potential methods of scientific age assessment such as the bone X-rays that have been mentioned by noble Lords and MRI scans.

It only requires a facial image and we are requires a facial image and we are Again, the IMA was part of the previous government's initiative, we are repealing the IMA but not going to compromise on border security, we are remaining fully focused on long-term credible policies and for that reason I invite Lord Davies and Lord Cameron and Lord Murray not to push these amendments at this time, just one moment and I will let them go, I also will say to Baroness Brinton with regard to her data point, we are trying to keep data separate between the Home Office asylum side of the business and the Home Office NAA B side of the business and there is a sort of wall between them where that data is not shared will top I will again look at the point she has made on reflection to examine those in detail but that is where I'm coming from at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I heard what she said, if she will let me reflect, I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way... The Minister anticipated my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister anticipated my point, the noble Lady put it much point, the noble Lady put it much more clearly, I was going to ask whether there would be periodic production of data around numbers production of data around numbers coming in because, as the noble Lady said, we are debating in the dark said, we are debating in the dark and when on the numbers. But he has answered the question and I thank him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him. I retain my position, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their
22:02
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I am grateful for the contribution from noble Lords, that contribution from noble Lords, that was informative if not intriguing debate and I shall be briefing and closing our discussion on this group. I returned to the central principle that has underpinned all of my remarks, are immigration system must be balanced and allow for proper dialogue, proper challenge and proper safeguards and function effectively. The system serves a vital purpose, it protects borders, and it upholds the rule of law, if we allow it to become paralysed by delays and challenges, it feels not only in its legal duties but in its duty to the British people.

We are concerned that removing these clauses will jeopardise the balance and without them the government's ability to take authoritative decisions and act on them will be weakened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful, I do not want to break his train of thought but I have just had information supplied that we actually do now have, on the government website, the number of government website, the number of age disputes raged -- raised, the number of adult found to be number of adult found to be children, that information is now children, that information is now available on gov.uk and I will supply further details to the noble Baroness in due course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness in due course. In the closing, the government should either reintroduce these provisions or make clear to this House how they intend to prevent the harm the removal will cause, without such assurances, we cannot be confident our borders will be confident our borders will be secure. All that the British public can have faith in the system that can have faith in the system that serves them. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 115, Lord Davies? Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 115, Lord Davies? Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 115, Lord Davies? Not moved. Amendments 115 a, to E. Not moved on block. The question is to clause 39 stand part of the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 39, amendment 116, Lord German. German.
22:05
22:05
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
speak also to the subsequent amendment in my name in this group. It is a bit of a reversal, this is It is a bit of a reversal, this is not looking at what has happened but not looking at what has happened but what is left behind, I am asking the government to consider, in quite some detail, I am worried the some detail, I am worried the Government Minister might have difficulty announcing all the questions, I am hopeful that, in the questions, I am hopeful that, in the end, if it is not possible, we get the answers in writing later, the the answers in writing later, the position is this, we support the put position is this, we support the put repeal -- the repeal of the repeal -- the repeal of the provision, what I'm concerned about is what policy is left behind when you take those out, as it stands, in you take those out, as it stands, in several places, the Nationality and Borders Act will become the default directive even though this was not directive even though this was not regarded as being something of the satisfaction when that Bill went satisfaction when that Bill went through this House and I think that there are some concerns about what there are some concerns about what is left in that area.

What this amendment does is bring together a amendment does is bring together a range of issues which presents the opportunity for the government to explain the continuing concerns that there are about aspects of the Nationality and Borders Act which it has chosen not to repeal within this Bill but rely on it within the sections of the IMA. There are sections of the Nationality and Borders Act which worsen the risk of violations of human rights which are Built further delays into the asylum system and increase the likelihood of legal challenges in the future.

I'm going to dwell upon several sections, there are more time speaking about in the whole of this area. First, section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act is officially paused but it allows for differential treatment between different groups of refugees, dependent on how they arrived in the United Kingdom. I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to explain why he wishes to retain that ability, to have the opportunity before it, why is the government retaining this section, if it is an operational benefit, it would be useful to know what is the benefit? Section 13, the main issue of concern with this section is, subsection 9 of the Nationality and Borders Act, which could lead to people being held in accommodation centres, including in large sites such as Wethersfield, for lengthy periods of time.

Before the Nationality and Borders Act, there was in limit of a continuous period of six months, which could be extended to nine months by the Secretary of state. This section enables the Secretary of to increase the time period and there have been ongoing concerns about asylum accommodation, as we know, particularly the large sites such as Wethersfield and this seems to be a pattern of repeating mistakes rather than learning from them, safeguards are important and it is concerning that this section, which we fall back on, would enable people to be accommodated with no indication of how long they would be therefore.

In a personal experience, when I visited, it was quite clear that when people understood that the maximum time they would be the was nine months, it reduced the concerns and increase the well-being of those residents who were there, having a time limit is very important. Section 14 is about the safe countries, we have debated that, section 18, not in force, create a requirement to provide evidence and argument about this is it can only lead to additional bureaucracy, providing evidence as part of the existing process for applying for asylum.

If the evidence is provided at appeal, which could have been provided at the initial decision stage, the immigration decider will seek an explanation for this and that could impact credibility. With the tight deadlines, a short window of time to provide evidence, it might be difficult if not impossible for individuals to provide necessary evidence if they are underrepresented and more than half of asylum claims are without legal representation at the moment due to the legal aid shortage and crisis.

Section 19, not in force, the assessment of whether to treat the person as truthful, that may be a straightforward assessment, I don't quite know how it might work, sections 20 to 25, not in force, the government is retaining them, relate to priority removal notices that one people they are being prioritised for removal, the person needs to respond in the cut-off period and if they respond late, it will damage their credibility. The concern about this is that in late claim is not necessarily without merit, it can take time for people to prevent issues relating because it is suffering from trauma or sexual violence.

It is unclear whether these reasons could be included in the good reason element of the removal notice that it builds upon the culture of disbelief in the decision-making process which already exists and is widely relied upon. This inference at not providing responses in a time indicates poor credibility, that could result in improper refusal. Section 27 creates, though it has not yet happened, and accelerated detained appeal system. In the first tier tribunal. Which could be used for any detained appeal if it is considered it will be disposed of expeditiously.

At the time, of course, it was an attempt to revive the detained fast-track scheme the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful in 2015 and it described the timetable for such appeals as to tide it is inevitable that applicants will be denied a fair opportunity. So, what is the operational reason for retaining the ability to have an accelerated appeal system and if there is a reason for it perhaps the Minister could tell us. And section 29 makes it possible to remove someone to a safe country when the asylum claim is pending, not when it has been determined, when it is pending, in other words, there is an appeal going on or a claim is being determined by the Home Office, you can deport someone in that process.

That removes important rights to appeal. Members of this House will remember, when we discussed the difficulty with the Rwanda scheme, people were going to have to make appeals from another country, and it was very difficult to maintain any means of correct procedure in that respect. I am sorry that this is quite long, they are very important issues, each one of them is what... What the Builders is making this the full-back position, sections 30 to 38 required decision-makers to 38 required decision-makers to impress internet the refugee -- interpret the convention in ways that do not convene with that convention.

We may have really had that discussion today, most of these interpretations, which we have talked about, and we will further exhausted that when I talk about Amendment 118 in a moment. Sections 40 to 41 relate to a criminalisation of asylum seekers, asylum seekers who thrive outside official route make arrive outside official route are committing an offence and liable to prosecution, I understand the difficulties there are with that, but it is one which the government needs to describe, I think, and have it on the record.

As to why it... Why that is important. Section 42 to 47 significantly expands maritime enforcement powers for push backs in international water. Removing the requirement to consider the duty of rescue. That is a fundamental and international maritime law, although it may not yet be used, this is what the law will mostly and it is important to understand why the government wants to retain that. Sections 49 to 57 deal with age assessments, which we have just dealt with.

And sections 58 to 63 exclude people, including children, from modern slavery protections if they received a 12 month prison sentence, even if the offence was committed as a result of their exploitation. The government is distancing itself, in that respect, from some or many of these issues, the question is, why the being kept? I want to turn to amendment 118, an exploration of changes in the rate of refusal of asylum which is particularly marking win relation -- particularly in relation to Afghans and every time people claiming asylum.

There have been a decline in the grant rate of applications from those countries. In the last two years of the previous government, the grant rate of Afghan asylum claims stood at 98%, in the first year of this government, it is more than halved, 44%. The average grant rate for Afghans across the EU as a whole, in quarter one of 2025, was 72%. Eritrean rates are down by 13%, Romanians reduced by 26%. I don't think I can observe any positive changes inside those countries during the relevant period, certainly no change in Eritrea.

The Taliban rule has been more oppressive and the situation in Iran remains dire. In a section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act, a more complex and higher standard of proof was introduced such that refugees are required to establish their status in the UK. Section 33 requires a refugee, whose fear of persecution is on account of the membership of a particular social group, such as refugees persecuted because they are women, to establish the membership of such a group to a What we need to understand is that the Minister could confirm to what extent this increase in refusals is as a result of the provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act sections 30 and 38 regarding their interpretation of the Refugee Convention.

We don't know yet how any of the new arrangements, how people are going to deal with appeals, it seems to me unrealistic appeals, it seems to me unrealistic that the UK is going to be able to return Afghans or Eritreans in large enough numbers even if the system upholds any refusal. There will be a sizeable number of people cannot be returned this amendment is to probe the impact of these changes brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act, as the government made an assessment of the numbers numbers of asylum seekers from Afghanistan Eritrea and Afghanistan who have exhausted their rights of appeal and will the government be seeking to return these people, if so are they seriously intending to return those countries, it is not safe what will the government do.

I think that's the series of questions we have to ask in this matter, it is looking at what is left behind by the actions of this bill and therefore we have to examine the pieces of legislation which we know for back on but that's a reason these probing amendments I'm sorry it's taken such a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Amendment proposed articles 39 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.
22:18
22:20
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed questions. 1019 in the his detailed questions. 1019 in the his detailed questions. 1019 in the evening it's a great test of stamina and detail to be able to examine and detail to be able to examine those issues in some detail. The noble Lord is proposing that numerous actions of the 2022 act repealed, I should start by making a repealed, I should start by making a very clear that we are determined to very clear that we are determined to restore order in the asylum system, mention that very clearly before we mention that very clearly before we wanted to operate swiftly fairly and firmly and to ensure that rules are properly enforced.

That we means we properly enforced. That we means we need to deal with the backlog of issues that are before the House as issues that are before the House as a whole. The noble Lord has raised a number of particular issues, I'm very happy to go through the detail very happy to go through the detail that I've got on inadmissibility of asylum claims on U.K.'s interpretation of key concepts the Refugee Convention section 3339, if he wants me to do that now I can do that now.

If he wants me to write to him so he can reflect on it in slower time before any report stage I can do that then. I'm happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond. I said right at the very beginning I think it would be very helpful to have it in writing so that as you rightly say we can reflect on it in the slow time that we have available to us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have available to us. I have before me and my notes are full insight of responses to the many points he has made and I'm very happy to go through them, but it may be more sensible given the our of be more sensible given the our of the day and given the fact that I suspect the noble Lord will not be pushing these amendments to a pushing these amendments to a division or moved this evening about that if I reflect on what he said in Hansard, respond to those points with clarity from this document, I will place that letter in the will place that letter in the library of the House so that other members can see the detail of that, members can see the detail of that, and that would in my view I hope give some speed to the response but give some speed to the response but also clarity for the noble Lord to be able to reflect on whether he wishes to return to these matters at wishes to return to these matters at report.

If that is satisfactory that report. If that is satisfactory that would seem to be a useful way of dealing with this matter. With that assurance I would urge him to withdraw the amendment pending any withdraw the amendment pending any discussion and response to the letter I will send him.
22:23
22:23
22:23
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I will be as brief as I possibly can because given the our what is important in this amendment of course is to try and return to having a service standard. Quite frankly the amendment refers to a three month service standard to determine asylum decisions, and I know that the Minister and others in the past have looked at the issue of whether it might be six months. The important question here is whether or not there should be a service standard for dealing with these matters.

History of this is a service standard you decide 98% of straightforward asylum applications within six months was introduced in 2014 after report which criticised delays in asylum decision-making. Of the claims submitted from March 2014 to the end of the year, 8% only, that is coming back now in time, received a decision within six months. In the second quarter of 2018, 56% of decisions were received within six months. In the third quarter of 2018, 25% received a decision within six months.

Subsequent to that, the service standard was abandoned and the reasons given by the government at that time were, we have moved away from the six month service standard to concentrate on cases with acute vulnerability and those in receipt of the greatest level of support including unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Additionally we will prioritise cases where an individual who has already received a decision a reconsideration is required. The current service standard does not always allow us to prioritise applications from the most vulnerable people in the system if that claim is not straightforward.

What that was telling me was that there is an off switch and a whole range of different categories, and the Home Office would move the arrow to whichever one it thinks was the most concerning the time. I know that if you look at the context of things like accident and emergency departments in the health services around this country, having a service standard is an important way that may not be kept but it's important way of people having that focus.

This seems to be an issue of prioritisation. The Home Office say that they can prioritise different targets in different circumstances rather than about having a service standard. Currently with a large backlog over 91,000 backlog at the end of 2024, and associated costs to the taxpayer and slow decision- making hampering integration, of those waiting for an initial decision around 50,000 people have been waiting for more than six months. Arguing for a new service standard means that we could speed up things because people would have a standard in mind.

Given that I would be grateful, I know that the Minister has dealt with this in the past in response to the questions, as the government reviewed the potential benefits of introducing or reintroducing a service standard, and what is the current prioritisation for asylum decision- making. And of course what is the government doing to reduce the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backlog? Amendment proposed after clause 40 insert the new clause is printed
22:27
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend amendment, I wasn't proposing to speak to it wasn't proposing to speak to it until recently. I may well have this wrong but I would be grateful if the wrong but I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm the position. I Minister can confirm the position. I think I read that arrangements have been put in place for bonuses for been put in place for bonuses for caseworkers who meet a standard, as I recall it it was a very small I recall it it was a very small amount of money, but if the Minister amount of money, but if the Minister can tell the committee what the standard is for asylum applications and say something about that bonus, and say something about that bonus, then I think it would be helpful.

I ask, try to ask that in a very ask, try to ask that in a very neutral fashion. I have amendment neutral fashion. I have amendment 115 to which my noble friend has put his name which relates to the use of his name which relates to the use of artifical intelligence in the system. Obviously artifical intelligence is going to be used, asking if it is used is probably like asking whether electricity is going to be used, of course it is these days.

We start from, because these days. We start from, because this is about data as well we start from the position that migrants are not criminals, they shouldn't be treated as criminals, immigration and asylum seeking refugee matters are civil matters and any interference with the sea must be proportionate and subject to safeguards. We would all agree I think our data is valuable, is very precious. Generally it needs regulation and oversight and above all trans, not above all but transparency is hugely important.

When I chaired the justice and home affairs committee, every Home Secretary who we questioned assured us that the human would remain in the loop, frankly we were sceptical about really what -- and the efficacy of it. The data subject must know what the authorities know or think they know about him, there is a lot more public discourse now about training AI, training of AI, but I doubt that we are reassured completely about that.

Immigration decisions are hugely impactful, they are really life changing. This amendment would ensure that no machine alone may determine a person's immigration fate and that personal data remains insulated from personal data remains insulated from Another... I think it must be obvious that the scope for bias, for instance, just to take one issue, must be very large if our rhythms are trained, if systems are trained using data where there is any concern about the basic information...

I am editing what I have written but not successfully. The information which is being used, without knowing what that basic information is, it is very difficult to assess how successful it is, difficult to know what is going on. I came across another issue regarding transparency, related to AI, and that is in... I think I might have mentioned this to the Minister, the interviews, the initial interviews, which are conducted, where the applicant is sat alone in a room with a screen, not knowing who is on the other end, not knowing how many screens that person is looking at, in other words, what is the supervision of interviews and discussions that are going on? How many people are involved, not knowing who is conducting the interview.

And I know there are concerns about this. Applicants are not told, generally, they understand, that they can request a copy of the transcript of that interview. And of those who do, who have good English, too many have found significant errors. In a sense, this is an anecdote, my conclusion from it is of the importance of using AI properly. And in a way which is transparent. This is it really a probing amendment as to how the detail and personal information is used, what guidance is given to caseworkers and how it is monitored, how to use is monitored and evaluated.
22:34
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we, on these benches, agree, to a degree, with the noble Lord and the noble Lady, we might not agree on everything but we are in this Small Way, United. I shall speak easily on the other amendment before turning to those in my name and that of Lord Cameron. Amendment 119, it is right that asylum casework should be completed as quickly as possible, delays are costly, costly to the taxpayer and costly to public confidence and they drag on for extended periods of time, it increases the financial burden and undermines the perception and however, whilst I support the principle, I do have concerns about the rigidity of imposing a service standard, what happens when the limit is breached? Will this make a new avenue for challenge, adding more strain to the system? The real solution lies not only in faster processing but reducing pressures in the first place.

Whilst I support the intention behind this, our priority must remain on addressing the root causes, not just setting targets that might prove counter- productive. Further on, we have sympathy, this is a matter that this site have raised in regards to other bills going through this House, decisions are being taken which greatly affect the life of another person, we need to have some guarantee of human involvement. I welcome this as an opportunity for the Minister to set out how AI will be used in this process, returning to the amendments in my name, amendment two and one would compel the government to produce a report into the cost of providing asylum support, the British people engage with the principle of asylum in goodwill, they want to see those in need of protection given the support they require, there is a national characteristic of which I am proud but part of maintaining the goodwill is being opened, and honest, about the cost involved, we have seen what happens when information gaps and anti-trust groups, narratives fill the space.

The government loses control and does not matter what they have done what they have delivered, it becomes noise in a vacuum. Our amendment seeks to address that by the government provides a comparative report on the cost of providing asylum support, transparency should not be something that the government resists, it is the hallmark of good governance. Finally, amendment two O2, that requires the Secretary of State to commission a review for the establishment of 1/3 country removal centres, we have been clear, we are facing a massive, escalating problem when it comes to illegal entry.

If ministers are serious about ending the crisis, they must be willing to consider the full range of options, this review could be a vital step towards that, taken together, our amendments are about realism, transparency and ambition. Realism in recognising the current approach is not working, transparency in being honest with the British people, about the cost and consequences of policies, and ambition, being prepared to consider tougher measures to match the scale of the challenge we face. Public patience is wearing thin and their confidence in the system will not be restored by half measures.

These proposals give the government the tools and mandate to act decisively.
22:38
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and his Majesty's loyal opposition frontbenchers for the amendments. The noble Lord and Baroness have tabled an amendment to introduce a new service standard, I want to thank them for the amendment, it is helpful to look at that, we are in agreement that there needs to be a properly functioning system, are asylum processes should not just be efficient but robust, we are committed to ensuring that claims are considered without unnecessary delay and we want to ensure that we include protection and it is granted as soon as possible so that they can begin to possible so that they can begin to build their lives.

As such, I want to provide reassurance on the important steps we are taking to achieve this aim, I have said, on a number of occasions, during the passage of this bill but also in questions and statements, we are inheriting a large backlog, we are trying to clear it at pace, we are delivering the removal of the people without the right to be in the UK and we want to ensure we restore that system very quickly. By transferring the asylum system, we want to clear the backlog of claims and appeals and we have taken steps to speed up the processing whilst maintaining the integrity of the system and we put resources in there, I hope, to ensure that we can do that in a pace.

That is why we are looking at the efficiency of appeals as well as decisions being of paramount importance, the Bill proposes setting up timeframe of 24 weeks. To dispose of some audit asylum appeals. And the measures aim to speed up the appeal decisions and enable speedy decisions to ensure that we both increased tribunal capacity and ensure timely consideration of appeals and I hope that the noble Lord and Baroness will agree with me that this work is in pace, appropriate and having a real impact now on the level of backlog.

Although we can't discuss the three month timescale that has been proposed, I hope I have given reassurances that, certainly it is on our agenda. Amendment 195, from the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee, particularly looks at the issue of AI generative tools to support caseworkers, I want to emphasise straight away, no decision is solely made by automatic decision-making, they still await a human I on the decision-making but, actually, it is important that case summarisation, policy search tools, both of which are designed to help decision- makers, that means that we have improvement and efficiency in that process which is helping to reduce the backlog that we want.

We have had an evaluation of the tools, we have published that on gov.uk in May, we have demonstrated that the new technologies can save, potentially, around one hour per case. Which is allowing decision- makers to access information more easily and streamline the process without, I hope, compromising the quality of the decisions. Again, ethics and data protection are at the forefront of the considerations, the noble Baroness has mentioned that, the Home Office is taking significant steps to ensure that where we trial AI in decision- making, reducer responsibly and in a way that maintains public confidence.

And any tools are being trialled and are used to assist Home Office staff and I hope, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment. The noble Baroness also mentioned as issues, which I will return to, but turning to amendment 211, from the noble Lord Davies, are reflecting... Just bear with me. Looking at ensuring transparency in the asylum system, I hope he understands, the amendment is unnecessary, not because it is not right that he presses us, but as we discussed, the cost of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers has grown.

I have put those proposals before the House as a whole. This is due to a large part the strain we have had on the asylum system in recent years. And a record number of arrivals via small boats, we are taking steps to reduce the costs and ensure that public funds are managed responsibly. I understand the intention behind the cement, to enhance and provide Parliament with a clear picture of how some support is being delivered, but I would also note that the information requested is published each year in Home Office annual accounts, the figures are publicly available and subject of commentary scrutiny and we remain committed to ensuring it is as clear and competitive as possible.

The amendments also scaled down the proportion of asylum seekers who have had claims denied. It might be helpful to note that finally -- failed asylum seekers can remain in... Remain eligible for support, for example, if you take a step to leave the UK or face temporary barriers for the future. And they are all important issues, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but I think that information is already available. I just want to touch briefly, this is information on my phone, which will lose its signal if I do not look at it immediately.

The issue of the rewards and bonuses. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, we have consistent delivery of high quality work and professional behaviour and we want to ensure that asylum decisions are subject to stringent quality checks with individual targets agreed with managers and reviewed regularly to ensure the high standards expected are consistently met. I will give more information about the bonus scheme as far as I can. After the discussions that have closed today. Can I just say, in passing, all claimants will receive a written transcript of any interview that has taken place and can have an audio recording as well.

I hope that reassures her of the discussions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before me today. The problem is that people are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The problem is that people are not told they are entitled to have it, I wonder whether the Minister
22:45
22:46
22:47
22:48
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
leave withdrawn. Amendment 120 not moved. Not moved. We now come to schedule one, in schedule one schedule one, in schedule one amendment 121, Lord Davies of Gower.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a busy group of amendments, essentially probing amendments around the subject matter amendments around the subject matter of immigration advisers and of immigration advisers and immigration service providers. I shall do my best to be as brief as shall do my best to be as brief as possible in my remarks, there are a lot of probing amendments in the section I hope that the Minister can section I hope that the Minister can take this as an opportunity to address some of the questions that myself or my noble friend or Davies have raised with these amendments.

have raised with these amendments. Although of course it may be and I can't pre-empt the Minister, it may be that he is he undertook in be that he is he undertook in relation to the probing amendments relation to the probing amendments Jesus to do that in writing or tonight in the chamber. Amendment 12162 probe the very broad powers in the bill to amend the definition of the bill to amend the definition of what constitutes -- constitutes what constitutes -- constitutes relevant matter in the Asylum act 1999, as it stands the text appear to give the government significant to give the government significant latitude to reinterpret and redefine that at will.

I would ask the Minister what sort of scope does he envisage here, how far could this power reach and in what circumstances does he believe it would be necessary to use the power when legislation covers such a wide discretion was a bit is right that the House seeks clarity on both its limits and its justification. Amendment 1226 to understand why the immigration services commission, Commissioner would need to give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice. I think this question is somewhat self- explanatory and I hope the Minister can perhaps clarify this in his response.

Amendment 123 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the amount of charge to variable penalty notice. Variation on that charge under such measures should be clear, justified and open to scrutiny. As it stands we are being asked to oversee -- approve a power use future use and impact is presently unknown. Parliament should have some assurance about how we will be kept informed of such changes, will further variation to be subject to debate or are we to accept them after the fact? If we achieve clarity now it would be my suggestion that that would avoid disputes later and I hope again the Minister can provide such clarity.

The next amendment 124 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the tribunal backlogs on the operation of the monetary penalties that the immigration services Commissioner can impose. As with much of our discussion on this bill backlogs and delays are central to how effective any enforcement process will be. In the context of appeals such delays can to often be exploited. Vexatious claims are lodged not with the aim of overturning a penalty but to take advantage of delays, delays that could prevent prohibition from being enforced and allow those in breach to avoid consequences for longer than is reasonable.

Therefore in order to be mindful of the role backlogs play not only as an administrative challenge as a weakness in the system that can be deliberately abused we need to be mindful of that. This amendment seeks to bring attention to that issue and ensure transparency over the scale of that problem in the first-tier Tribunal. The scheme that we are creating here can only work if the appeals process is not allowed to become a floor in its allowed to become a floor in its Amendment 125 is in a similar spirit to amendment 123 in that it seeks to incorporate greater oversight into the use of the powers granted to the government to specify fees and amounts.

Oversight allows us to do our job as opposition properly, namely in holding the government to account and checking that what is being done is both right and effective. We need this to be built into the legislation as much as possible if it is to work, again I hope the Minister can tell us in his response how he will ensure this happens on this point. Briefly in relation to amendment 128 and 129 in the name of Baroness Hamwee, they require little commentary from us as it is a question put directly to the Minister.

I might just add that it tangentially speaks the point that we on these benches are making about proportionality and oversight, clarity on these points from the Minister would be welcome. Amendment 130 is consequential to the amendment in schedule one page 78 line 9. To conclude this group is at its heart about asking questions, probing the government, one of the most important functions of this House, and any clarity that the Minister can provide in his response will be welcome in order to ensure that there is proper oversight of the powers of this bill and that proportionality has bought -- built into its operation and the system it creates is both effective and ready to function from day one, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that. Amendment proposed schedule one page 67, line 7, leave out paragraphs 2 and three.
22:54
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

paragraphs 2 and three. 128 and 129. This issue was brought to our attention by the brought to our attention by the immigration practitioners Association. I want to make it quite clear that this is not a self- serving pair of amendments, it is about the fees charged for services by the Commissioner for things like competence assessments, registration, training, events, accreditation and advice, going beyond the cost to the IAA of beyond the cost to the IAA of exercising the function.

The point that they make is that if the fees charged are a burden on practitioners, which they will be, there shouldn't be a burden, more of a burden than they need to be to pay for the functions. That is in itself a barrier to access to justice. When we come to the amendment on legal aid we will be talking I am sure about the importance of access to justice, and its place in the rule of law.

And so on. I have made a note for that amendment to talk about the terrifically hard work that it is being an immigration legal practitioner. When I was in practice many years ago I shied away from immigration work because even then it was so difficult. There is a shortage of practitioners. It's important that they are not deterred from maintaining their staffing numbers, not deterred from upscaling existing advisers, not deterred from recruitment.

The concern is about, and may seem counterintuitive given that what we are talking about is essentially assistance and support from the IAA, but then we mustn't see this impeding the growth in these sectors capacity and the supply or quality advice -- of quality advice. That is important in its place in maintaining a good asylum system.
22:57
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful again as ever to his Majesty's loyal opposition and to Baroness Hamwee for their amendments. I want to give them the general assurance that we are committed to ensuring that those seeking immigration advice and services can access a regulated and competent advice centre and the clause in this bill as drafted will strengthen the availability of good quality regulated immigration advice and therefore bolster access to justice and therefore we would hope that the amendments would not be pushed either today or oscillator stage.

I want to explain why. The purpose, let me deal festival, she has just completed her comments, with Baroness Hamwee's amendment. It is intended to probe whether access to justice will be impeded if fees are higher than the cost of the services provided. Under those fees. The amendment tabled would remove the ability of the Secretary of State that the Home Secretary, and the Commissioner to charge fees for a function which may exceed the cost of exercising that function as well as removing the safeguards related The Baroness May be aware that under the Treasury's guidance on managing public money the basic principle is that fees and charges should be set at A-level to recover costs.

The fees charged to advisers for application for registration will continued registration with the Commissioner are not currently at full cost recovery levels and quite frankly in the current economic climate position is no longer sustainable. Changes to the charging power would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and as drafted paragraphs 3 and four will allow for an average of the cost provided of services across organisations to be charged rather than attempting to make a calculation in the number of hours spent on providing services to one organisation vs another which would not be feasible in the approach we would take.

This approach is in accordance with Treasury rules on managing public money, different fee levels for different types of users should reflect princes in average costs for providing the services to those groups. And ensuring fees are proportionate to organisation size will help bolster I believe access to justice. We may have again some reflection on that but that is the point I wish to put to the noble Baroness on her initial amendments. There is a number of amendments from HMG opposition, I will deal first with 125, with consequential amendments aims to alter the type of secondary instrument charge fees in secondary instrument charge fees in respect of certain Commissioner functions from an order to regulations.

This would make regulations specifying the fees chargeable by the Commissioner subject to the affirmative procedure under section 166 of the immigration and Asylum act 1999. The measure in this bill replaces the current power to charge fees by order set out in paragraph 5 of schedule six to the immigration and asylum act 1999. As the new charging power and ability to be inserted into the 1999 act use of an order as a relevant Statutory Instrument ensures draft inconsistency between this bill and current legislation.

It is it considered appropriate to afford an appropriate level of scrutiny and I remind all noble Lords Negative procedure can be played against and Amendment 121 intends to probe the planned changes, on which immigration advice for which the commission has regular oversight would be made. The amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of state to amend the definition of relevant matters. I hope the noble Lord will recognise the secondary legislation gives the Secretary of state flexibility to act quickly and the agreement we would have for a clear definition of relevant matters is essential to support effective regulation and enforcement of the immigration advice.

So, again, I give the example that amending relevant matters will allow us to clarify what is not a relevant matter, for example, providing technical assistance. Meaning more support is available for vulnerable advice seekers without fear that it could help lead to prosecution or fines. Regulations will be subject to an affirmative procedure and Parliament can determine and debate that in due course. The amendment 122 is probing why commissioners would need to give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice.

A relevant person in this case means a person registered with the commission under sections 84 and 85 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, therefore, under regulatory oversight. The amendments as tabled, one to two, would remove the ability to oppose a penalty notice on a person who is not a relevant person. This would have the effect of venting the Commissioner opposing a penalty upon rogue, unregulated advisers, person who were at the time a relevant person but no longer relevant and registered with the Commissioner at the point of receipt of such notice.

This amendment would allow previously registered persons to avoid penalties by the registry, avoiding penalising. Again, I hope, without explanation, the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment. That 123 amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the penalty notice. The maximum amount of variable penalty notice is set at £15,000. The power to amend this by regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure, giving Parliament driving seat on this. This gives the ability to respond to the effectiveness of the fixed penalty as well as inflation and tackle abuse with adequate group.

The 15,000 figure could be changed, it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The final amendment, 124, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of backlogs. Within three months of it coming into effect. There is already established procedure for government departments to assess the impact of the judicial system through the justice impact system through the justice impact test. Which has been completed for this policy proposal. I intend to update that prior to introduction of any secondary legislation and keep that under review.

In summary, a fairer charging structure, clarity over the list of regulated matters and immigration advisers may provide advice on an enhanced ability to penalising those who did not cooperate all positive things. To that end, I believe clauses should remain as drafted in their entirety, I hope with those reassurances, noble Lords can examine again and withdraw the amendments.
23:05
23:06
23:07
23:07
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I find to move amendment 131 and speak to the other amendments, 133, speak to the other amendments, 133, 134, 135 and 210. This amendment will, first of all, provide a time limit of 28 days detention for persons detained for immigration purposes, and introduce general criteria for detention to ensure that detention, for the purpose of removal, will only be used when necessary and proportionate and when the person can be removed. Third, ensure that there is an effective oversight of detention via the First-tier Tribunal with automatic hearings after 96 hours of detention.

I have people this amendment because, having engaged with the findings of the enquiry, having visited detention centres and spoken to current and ex-detainees, I believe it is a change that needs to happen. When I visited an immigration centre last year and spoke to detainees, and staff, it was made clear that case progression for immigration detainees is slow and tampered by staff shortages. Further to this, detainees were unaware of the progress on their cases and when they could expect to leave detention or be removed.

Communication to them was minimal and this led to despair and frustration at the lack of hope for the future. In the 2025 report on the progress of it, the inspectorate noted that case progression was poor in six of the eight cases reviewed. Inspectorate report common reasons for excessive periods of detention, including, poor case progression, delays obtaining travel documentation, delays in securing appropriate release accommodation, and failures or delays in recognising high levels of ability. With no limit on how long somebody can be detained, and no set time delay detention, there is no incentive or pressure on the Home Office to make swift, accurate decisions.

A time limit set at 28 days, together with automatic bail hearings, would ensure there is sufficient time for the Home Office to proceed with the removal, in circumstances where impediments to these processes, such as unavailability of travel documents, have been resolved. In 2024, more than 50% of people held in detention by the Home Office were released back into the community under some form of immigration bail, an indication that the detention was unnecessary or even unlawful. According to the most recent annual report and accounts published on 17 July, from 24 to 25, the government paid out compensation for unlawful detention in 334 cases, totalling £10.4 million.

In 2023/24, there were 838 cases totalling £11.8 million. This is clear evidence that significant numbers of people are detained wrongly or unlawfully each year, without access to appropriate appeals or processes, it is possible that the Home Office could continue. These amendments intend to reduce the incidence of unnecessary detention, and reduce the consideration and considerable suffering and inefficiency inherent in the current system. This would help to ensure that immigration detention is used only when a person has exhausted all appeals and removal is actually imminent and no viable alternatives are available.

I appreciate that the government will state that immigration detention is not indefinite, the Minister recently stated... The Minister of security and asylum stated that the centres are not used for indefinite detention, we can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released. The point here is that, for the individual, that experience can be definite, indefinite, but certainly no straightforward when people ask the question.

The call for a statutory time limit on immigration detention has been made consistently by lot of expert bodies. Including the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Chief Inspector of Prisons, Independent Monitoring Board, the British Medical Association, the Equality Act commission and the Brighouse enquiry. There is a mound of evidence in favour. Even in the most serious cases, traditional oversight of detention is required after 36 hours and individuals must be released after 96 hours if charges are not laid.

Those suspected of terrorism can be held for a maximum of 14 days. Further to this, the statutory purpose of detention is to effect removal. Not to serve as indefinite detention to prevent reoffending. The purpose of immigration detention is to facilitate removal. Conditions in I Arsiz are often harsh and present -- present like. In a recent report on an IRC, the chief Inspectorate noted in long-standing and fundamental problem was that all detainees at Brighouse, who should be held with minimal restrictions, were held in ends due to that looked and felt like a prison.

The centre did not have enough space or experienced staff to manage an increasingly vulnerable population. And, behind that, we have to enquiry, published in 2023, which recorded over a five-month period, 90 incident or active emissions capable of amounting to mistreatment. Reducing the time period is important in reducing harm, when this proposal is being debated previously, concern has been expressed that detainees will run down the clock to frustrate removal and be granted release. The amendment permits re-detention beyond the period of 28 days when there has been a material change of circumstances which could include a situation when an individual's appeal rights are exhausted or a travel document is issued.

There are, however, a range of sanctions available under section 26 of the Immigration Act which enable anybody seeking to frustrate the system to be prosecuted. Under these proposals, the tribunal can refuse to grant bail if distinctions are set and removal is to take place under the following 21 days. Further, these proposals do not impact the broad powers of the First-tier Tribunal to set conditions of immigration being -- bail. These include reporting and resonance conditions, financial conditions as well as such other conditions, as it seems fit.

The proposal also exempts cases, these proposals exempt cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain was taken in the interest of national security. I'm about to probe the Minister on another avenue to reduce time in immigration detention, for people serving a sentence for imprisonment, custodial sentences provide sufficient time for immigration cases to be resolved. In this time, the Home Office cannot claim the travel document and make arrangements to facilitate a efficient deportation on release.

In other words, excretory process without having to go through the steps and the time it takes. As a way of reducing the cost of detention, will the Minister consider the merits of progressing individual deportation cases whilst they are serving their sentences. Further to this, the Independent Chief Inspector at, following his inspection, stated the Home Office were not making best use of the Early Removal Scheme or the facilitated returns scheme. The schemes could reduce numbers schemes could reduce numbers With all that in mind I hope these amendments will enable us to understand how much of the information has been provided by such range, wide range of organisations, have enabled the government to look at changing the measures that they currently use and implement those such as in these amendments to increase numbers of people who both voluntarily return to the home who are detained for the purpose of removal and to ensure that we don't have the ins and outs of removal and bail, retention and attention, that cycle continuing and people being kept in detention and without knowing an end in sight.

There's a lot to be dealt with here because there's a lot of expert advice, a lot of independent expend -- inspection advice given to the government, this been made available to both houses here, both of our Joint Committee on Human Rights and also Home Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. I think that it really requires action which these amendments seek to fulfil in this part of the bill. part of the bill.
23:17
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
I am sure I will make my remarks as brief as possible. We on the side of house oppose the border spill it creates a tutor system which some people subject rightly to stricter conditions but which create a condition in which others are not. The amendment would in effect apply these provisions from individuals who in reality ought to be subject to them. If these provisions are as the noble Lords rightly recognise necessary to strengthen our ability they should apply equally to all relevant cases from the moment this act comes into force.

We on the site also pours amendment 132 which would result in releasing people from dissension possibly before any determination has been made on them before we can be assured that it is safe and in the national interest to do so. This would result in a release of people when their identities remain unclear and we do not know why they are here or indeed what threat they may pose to the country. We know of cases where people who write it illegally went on to plan and very nearly execute major terrorist attacks sponsored by foreign -- hostile foreign states as ongoing.

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

British people have a right to know who is being detained and where they are from. If we are to foster goodwill towards those who genuinely need our help this must be done in a framework of trust and openness. For these reasons will we welcome amendment 144 clarity and transparency brings we cannot support the majority of the amendments in this group. They would weaken key provisions, create loopholes and make it harder for us to maintain the strength and Asylum system. The challenge we face is significant and demands robust response, no one will benefit in the long term if we fail to take control now.

The British people would lose patients, trust will erode and goodwill towards migrants who genuinely need our help will diminish. Once that goodwill has lost that cannot easily be recovered, we must bring the public with us not alienate them and that requires a system that is both strong and fair. These amendments and argue do not achieve that.
23:20
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with Lord Davies on his tone in this and I find myself not in agreement I'm afraid with Lord German. It's an interesting and to a long day of debate. Immigration detention is an issue I know which noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose.

It is the Home Office's position that the current attention power is lawful, this clause provides for those greater legal clarity regarding its application. The retrospective effect of this clause individuals be challenged the lawfulness of their detention and such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings. Amendment 131 in the name of Lord German and Baroness Brinton seeks to remove that retrospective effect, I don't believe that is a productive way forward because, as I have mentioned, clause 41 clarifies these powers.

The Home Office already detained individuals at the first stage of deportation, clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure existing practices are legally robust. Amendment 132 tabled again by Lord German with support from other noble peers, it's important to make clear that governments position that a statutory time limit on detention will not in our view be effective in ensuring those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK.

The government has been clear that we are committed to increasing removals with people who have no right to be here, that's what the public expects and in that vein on the same page as Lord Davies. In this year and in ending March 25 there were 8,600 enforced removals, 22% increase on the previous year, that would not be possible without a time limit, with a time limit on detention because that would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers.

It is crucial we have an immigration system that encourages compliance under 28 day time limit people who have no legal right to be in the UK, including as Lord Davies mentioned some who have potentially have committed serious crime, would be automatically released after 28 days regardless of whether they have actively obstructive removal efforts or post clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders who will have committed serious criminal offences would benefit equally from this amendment as would anybody else.

Additionally the time-limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to frustrate removal processes. Until they reach that 28 day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made, it would push potentially therefore people over the 28 day limit and this would undermine an effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk. Amendment 133 which requires that after 96 hours of detention of personally only be continue to be detained unless they have been refused by the first-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a schedule bail hearing stop this would again in my view placed significant additional burdens on an already stretched Tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.

There are, I hope this will reassure the noble Lord, there are a number of safeguards in the detention process including access to the courts by judicial review, bail applications can be made at any point, automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods, with these mechanisms in place the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary. I derecognise I understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we only have powers to detain people for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose either to examine a person on their arrival to remove or to deport.

We have a number of safeguards in place and I want to assure noble Lords that we are -- where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe these safeguards ensure people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord honour -- but I put that to him to consider withdrawing the amendment to return to it later. I know the noble Lord published -- tabled amendment 140 and sadly he has not managed to be here this evening in his place, but I say to him that for when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day in the morning he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants.

We also include -- produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that I would hope that noble Lords can withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am obviously disappointed that the evidence which has been produced the evidence which has been produced by both the Inspectorate and also many other bodies including the
23:26
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
many other bodies including the House of Commons Justice Committee and our own committee on human rights have been not necessarily thrown out of the window, but actually have not necessarily received the full consideration that we are speaking of here. I hear what the Minister says, and I will reflect on that and of course with the other supporters who are obviously supporters of this issue we may welcome back to this issue later. With that I withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Do noble Lords wish the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do noble Lords wish the amendment to be withdrawn? Amendment is by to be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 41 stand part of the bill, As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. After clause 41 amendment 132 it. After clause 41 amendment 132 it. After clause 41 amendment 132 not moved. Amendment 133 Lord German not moved. Amendment 134 Lord German not moved.

Amendment 135 not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. Amendment 135 not moved. I beg to move the House do now resume. The question is that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The "Contents" have Beg to move the House do now adjourn. adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page