Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to something that has always puzzled me. Article 8 has two paragraphs. The first is about

“the right to … private and family life”.

The second states that you can ignore that if it is

“in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

I do not see the problem with inserting something such as that into the Bill, whereby we can remove people if they breach that. That is part of Article 8, which is not at all about an unqualified right to a family life.

On the point about “careless driving”, that term is used if you have made a bit of a mistake, whereas “dangerous driving” really is a dangerous offence. I can see how that would qualify, but I am not so sure about careless driving—it depends on the circumstances.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson. This is the type of debate that we need to have in this Chamber. These are wide moral issues that go to the heart of what we do with our justice system.

Something that has been forgotten in the debate is that the purpose of some measures—which have been described by some as extreme and, somehow, a little too far reaching—is to have a deterrent effect. We sometimes forget that that is the purpose of some law. It is not about having something in place so that, after an event has happened, we can do something that is proportionate to the person who did it; it should be about the knowledge of the wider public, whether that is our standing population or those who are living among us and seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and reasonable behaviours expected of us all. If we have what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, they could perhaps facilitate better behaviour. I do not think we should be frightened of this.

We need to have a wider debate and for the Government to open up more countries to be deemed acceptable and safe. We hear that our European neighbour countries are taking a rather different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, from ours in this country. I do not think that their human rights industry has quite got to the advanced state that we have in the UK. We have an opportunity here for the British public to realise that these Houses of Parliament are listening to them and their concerns, so I welcome this wider debate. If we do not adopt these amendments today, the Government should take on board how they can move towards the position of the wider public.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is entirely positive that we can say, “Let’s look at the wording of this”; we might have some qualms about whether we need to reword it to avoid unintended consequences—that is fine. The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made a good point: this is a very important moral debate. It is one that more and more people in the country are frustrated that Parliament is not having, so it is positive that we are doing so today.

I will emphasise three things. First, we often consider what will happen to the safety of people if we deport them to countries that we deem unsafe. But the key question is actually: what about the safety of British citizens? They get forgotten in that whole discussion. We end up with this ridiculous situation where we say, “Oh, I’m really worried about this person who has committed a serious sex crime. If they are returned to their country, they might be thrown into some terribly unsafe prison. They might be beaten up or killed for the fact that they’re a sex criminal. We’ve got to save them”. We say that rather than emphasise the victims of that person. That is why people get frustrated about the topsy-turvy nature of this.

Secondly, until we legislate on this, the British public could rightly say that the Government have no control over a decision, which they want to make, to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country. That is entirely appropriate for legislation, even if we need to work out the wording so that it is proportionate.

Finally, we are about to start the Sentencing Bill, which I am very interested in. The state of prisons is incredibly depressing at the moment. In fact, while we are talking about unsafe places, I do not know that going to prison here is safe for anyone. They are overcrowded and there are serious problems with our prison system. It is unexplainable that we would have people in that prison system, taking spaces that we just do not have, when we should, by right, be able to say that they do not deserve to be in this country. They broke the social contract after they were given an opportunity to be here. Sometimes they are illegal—that is different—but if they are given the right to remain, and then they murder, rape or steal from their fellow citizens, they have broken the basis on which we trusted them to stay. That is reasonable to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a good point: this is not an extreme position but a normal, commonsensical position. Based on everything I have heard from the Government, I think they agree with that. If they do, they need to legislate accordingly, which is what these amendments are trying to do.

Migrants: Hotel Accommodation

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Safeguarding is extremely important, and it is the Government’s ambition to remove all asylum seekers from hotels as soon as is practical. We have reduced the number of hotels: in fact, we have fewer hotels now, in the week of the general election anniversary, than we had last year when the Conservative Party left office. It is our ambition to further reduce that. When the Conservatives were in office, hotel costs peaked at £9 million per day. This time last year they were £8.5 million per day, and this year they are £6 million per day. That is still too high, but it is on the right, downward trajectory, and we will continue to safeguard in doing that.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have a pal who has a fairly good-grade job. Many months ahead, he had booked four-star accommodation two days a week at a well-known hotel chain. He had a phone call out of the blue and was told, “I’m very sorry but your months-ahead booked accommodation in our four-star hotel has now been cancelled because the hotel of 150 rooms has been taken over for migrant accommodation”. Does the Minister agree with me that the pull factors of good accommodation are clear and obvious? The pull factor of the ability to get a delivery job in this country is very clear, and we can see illegal working on every high street. Until we get a grip on this issue, I am afraid that it will not get any better. We need rather more than “let’s smash the gangs”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I would be grateful if he could write to me with the details of his friend’s hotel, because that is a great surprise to me. We are not opening new hotels; we are trying to reduce the number of such hotels and reducing the bill, under his Government, of £9 million a day to the current £6 million a day that I mentioned.

If the noble Lord wants to tackle illegal working, I recommend that he supports the Bill on employment rights currently before this House, which is about reducing the pull factors of illegal working and cracking down on illegal employers. As I recall, the Opposition have voted against that Bill on several occasions and plan to do so again.

Migration and Border Security

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord, but this is a very fast-moving situation; we were not here this time last week. There are challenges in Syria, with people moving back there from neighbouring countries and the United Kingdom, and people, potentially, still seeking asylum from a new Syrian regime that they do not support. These issues are all on the table. I hope the noble Lord will understand, but I do not wish to commit now to definitive policy solutions to those issues, because the Government are reflecting on them. So I will simply say that the £11 million of humanitarian aid that the Foreign Secretary announced this week is a start. If the noble Lord and the House will allow us, those are matters that we can maybe discuss in slower time, when the Government have assessed the position fully and determined what best we can do with our partners to assist that position.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, much has been made of the Syrian situation by many noble Lords this afternoon. Does this not open up a question as to what the asylum rules are really there for? We do not know quite where Syria will end up—it is early days, as the Minister very correctly said—but many Syrians will be looking to go back home. During the years of civil war in Syria, Lebanon warmly accepted many Syrians, but it was quite bizarre that, during the height of Lebanon’s recent problems, many Syrians went home from Lebanon saying that Syria was safer than Lebanon at the time.

Are we not in a situation, if Syria does settle down, where we can consider whether temporary asylum is probably a better way forward for the world? Ultimately, is it not the case that the brightest, best, fittest and strongest people, having left their country at a time of conflict, would actually wish and want to return home to rebuild that country for the future? Is that something the Government would support: a temporary asylum basis rather than a permanent one?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Individuals can always choose to return if the situation in their home country that they were fleeing and seeking asylum from changes. In this circumstance, we have temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation and we are keeping country guidance under review. With due respect to all noble Lords, we do not yet know how this will pan out; we do not know who the good guys and the bad guys are going to be; and we do not know ultimately what will happen in the new Syria that might emerge from the collapse of the Assad regime.

The same is true for Ukrainian citizens and others who flee and seek temporary asylum or relief from a particular war situation or from poverty and hunger. We judge those on an individual basis: asylum is given, or it is not; people are returned, or they are not. I would like to keep to that system, but recognise that circumstances change, as has been shown in the last week in Syria.