Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I very much hope that the Opposition will be able to find it in their hearts to support this suggestion, because wherever you stand on co-operation with the EU, the fact is that we are talking about trying to nab the criminals, so it makes absolute sense. Of course, the TCA was negotiated by a Conservative Government, so I hope that trying to get good co-operation with Europol can be supported from all sides. As I said, I hope that the Minister will give a positive reaction to suggestions of making the border commander regularly meet the boss of Europol.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has given us a foretaste of the consideration we will give to Amendment 206, tabled by her noble friend Lady Hamwee and to which I have added my name, which is about Europol. I agree with what she said. I also agree with the interventions made by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke on behalf of his noble friend Lord Browne, about the importance of consultation. Of course, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. She has no reason to fear; no one will ever accuse her of being pompous. She was right to remind us about the importance of the use of words, drawing our attention to “irregular” and “illegal”.

I will speak to Amendment 7, moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on his behalf and that of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which spells out what the duties of the commander should be in

“reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and … increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings”.

In some ways it seems almost otiose to include this in the Bill, as those are clearly the main reasons why the Government brought it forward in the first place, but I understand the need sometimes to use Bills as a form of semaphore to send out signals and why the Opposition Front Bench might wish to do that.

As the Minister knows, I apologised for being unable to speak at Second Reading because a group of us from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, were in Strasbourg to talk about, among other things, interpretations of Article 8 of the ECHR, prosecutions, the number of illegal crossings—as referred to in this amendment—and the criminal gangs manipulating and profiteering on the backs of often desperate people. During that visit, we met, among others, Tim Eicke KC, who has been the British judge in the European court for the past nine years. As noble Lords will know, the Government have put forward the names of three others who will take his place. I am glad to say that he has told me that he is willing to come to your Lordships’ House when he returns in September to share with us many of the experiences that he has had over these past nine years.

The European court and the Council of Europe are not our enemies; some of your Lordships were able to participate in the debate that I moved on behalf of the Cross Benches a few weeks ago on the European Convention on Human Rights—its origins, which we have been celebrating as it is its 75th anniversary, and its importance in this day and age. The Council of Europe and the European convention are inextricably linked. I wanted members of our committee to evaluate and understand that, because if one were to leave the convention it would mean also leaving the Council of Europe and disentangling ourselves from many of the things that I believe will help us ensure that the number of illegal crossings will be reduced and the number of prosecutions increased, because we have to do these things across borders and with our neighbours. If we do not, we will certainly not stem the staggering numbers of people leaving their homelands to make these dangerous crossings.

The Council of Europe and the court shared our concerns in all the discussions that we had. These are not our enemies. We discussed the exploitation and displacement of a staggering 122 million people—a number that has nearly doubled in the past decade. The number of refugees and persons in need of international protection reached over 42 million, while the number of internally displaced people rose to around 74 million. More than two-thirds of refugees originated from just six countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, South Sudan, Sudan and Venezuela. A rough but telling extrapolation from these figures suggests that around one in every 67 people on earth has been forcibly displaced. These people are the shadow which hangs over our debate on this amendment and others today.

On 20 June, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on this Bill. It runs to over 80 pages and I commend it to your Lordships. It is available in the Printed Paper Office. At paragraph 13, we remarked:

“It was not within the scope of this inquiry to look at wider issues such as the root causes of the refugee crisis or proposals for offering safe and legal routes to those in need of protection. Whilst this Bill focuses exclusively on tackling organised immigration crime, we encourage the Government to seek to address the underlying root causes which are fuelling the global refugee crisis”.


We cannot dodge that challenge. I strongly agree with the UNHCR, which, in its recent analysis of global trends, was emphatic that, for meaningful progress to be made,

“we must address the root causes”.

It is a point that I have repeatedly—perhaps some would say tediously—made in your Lordships’ House. Simply blaming international humanitarian law will not be part of the solution.

To be clear, the Joint Committee welcomes the Bill’s overall aims to deter organised crime and prevent loss of life at sea. Of course, we would therefore agree with the terms of this amendment as it is drafted. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure that a legislative framework is in place to help eradicate this terrible and dangerous criminality, but we will not do that by diminishing our obligations to uphold international conventions and commitments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, does an admirable job in his role at the Home Office and I join others in paying tribute to him. I have been deeply impressed by the work he does and it is good to have got to know him over the distance. The Minister knows as well as I do that, if offences are applied too broadly, refugees, victims of people smuggling and modern slavery are being put at risk of being criminalised rather than the smugglers. We have to help the victims as well as tackle the smugglers; it is not a question of one or the other. The Bill needs to target those who are profiting from organised immigration crime. The people they are exploiting need to be protected, but at present there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of the new offences. We are united in wishing to reduce the number of illegal crossings, but we are wary of enacting laws which could have unforeseeable consequences.

I will return to some of these points in later groups. I will try not to be repetitive—we have to make progress on this Bill. I welcome the debate we have had so far on this group and the spirit in which it has been conducted. It is admirable, and far better than some of the exchanges that we had in the previous Parliament, both in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on the Floor of the House. I hope, as we proceed, that we will keep these two objectives in our sights: first, to tackle the illegality of those who are putting lives at risk on a daily basis and, secondly, the importance of protecting those who are so vulnerable.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but I did attend the pre-brief that the Minister kindly gave to Peers.

On Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I would be surprised if such meetings were not on the agenda of anybody holding the position. I have no difficulty with the concept of putting it in the Bill, but I assume it would be a routine level of co-operation that you would expect. However, if she feels it necessary to insist that it is in the Bill, I personally have no objection to it.

As I said to the Minister, my concern is not with the Bill itself but with what is not in it; that is my biggest worry. We have just heard figures about the international situation and, of course, we require an international negotiation to try to solve an international problem. That is why I am surprised that the Government are refusing even to talk to our allies about the 1951 refugee convention. I asked the Government last August and again a few weeks ago, and they refuse to enter into discussions with our allies on that. I would have thought it was a relatively sensible place to start, because the convention was created after World War Two and the world has changed. The problem is highlighted by what we have just been discussing. International aid is obviously another component and, of course, for economic reasons, we are moving in the opposite direction. There is a contradiction at the core of it all.

--- Later in debate ---

We can dance on the head of a pin on the difference between irregular and illegal, but the general public out there do not get that. They are not interested, because the outcome is the same, as far as they are concerned. We know that there are differences, and we know we have international obligations, but we have to look at those obligations with the people we negotiated them with, because that is the only way you can change. If it is felt that change is necessary, you have to discuss with your interlocutors what those changes might be to bring things forward from post-World War II to the present circumstances we face.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a really important point about the importance of looking again at the things we committed ourselves to in the circumstances in which those were signed. I reassure him that the Joint Committee takes that view too. While we were in Strasbourg, we discussed a letter which had just been sent by nine different Governments, led by Denmark and Donald Tusk’s Poland—which could hardly be regarded as being anti-international law or on the far right of politics—urging the Council of Europe and the European court to look again at the interpretation of things such as Article 8. I know that is the position of the Government, too. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will hear more from the Government about what it actually is that they would like to see reformed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Minister will be aware that, of course, the ECHR has particular connotations for me and Northern Ireland and how we negotiated the Good Friday agreement. Equally, how its terms are being interpreted, within the United Kingdom internally in particular, gives me cause for great concern. No agreement should be unable to be reviewed or looked at with life experience and the passage and flux of time. All I am saying is that the Government need to do both. The refugee convention of 1951 is another component part of it.

Coming back to the point about the powers of the commander, I believe it has to be the Government that set the strategic objectives. If we are not careful, we are also in danger of having too many cooks here. We have Border Force, this new organisation, the Government themselves, the police and all sorts of people involved, indeed including Interpol operating internationally. My anxiety about all of this is that successive Governments and Parliaments—we are all responsible—were all part of the business model of ruthless people who exploit and take money from unfortunate individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

On the other hand, there are our own failings internally about our record-keeping. I do not believe that we really know who is in this country. We do not know how many Governments are putting potential sleeper cells into our country, and we do not really know who leaves and when. Boats are not the only method of irregularly or illegally getting into this country; the old-fashioned back of the lorry and other means are still there and have to be taken into account.

We have a huge task ahead of us, but I say to the Minister that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have substance. I do not see anything wrong with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it seems a reasonably sensible thing to do, and I would have no issues with it at all. However, I remind the Minister that, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the Government in setting goals, and it is within that that we should look at how a commander operates, because that person cannot simply exist in splendid isolation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I appreciate that this group looks rather indigestible, so let me put it in a different way. I will give the amendment numbers so that they are there in the Official Report and it is understood that they have to be read as packages, each relating to a different clause but on the same point. To Clause 13, as well as Amendment 29, I have Amendments 34, 36 and 37. To Clause 14, I have Amendments 40, 43, 45 and 48, and to Clause 16, I have Amendments 52, 54, 58, and 61.

Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill creates various new offences, and these amendments are addressed to what is an offence and what is a defence, and in brief, who has to prove what. As the clauses are constructed, there is an offence if, to take Clause 13, P supplies a relevant article, and P will have a defence if he/she/they show that they had a reasonable excuse. The explanatory statement puts it more elegantly than I could—I credit the Public Bill Office with this; the drafting defeated me, and it was extremely helpful. That is not saying that I do not take responsibility—of course I do. As the explanatory statement says, the amendment

“makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution”,

which, of course, is normally the way we do things in this country. If the supply is without reasonable excuse—the prosecution has to show this—P would not be prosecuted if he has a reasonable excuse. One would not start on that journey.

I am very uneasy that the burden is on P. Innocent till proved guilty should be the position, not the equivalent of guilty until proved innocent. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to support this string of amendments, which has been introduced very digestibly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and deals with the reverse burden of proof and reasonable excuse.

Earlier in our proceedings, I referred to the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights last Friday. It deals at some length with these issues that the noble Baroness has laid before your Lordships. These amendments seek to strengthen the safeguards in these new offences. Paragraphs 20 and 25 to 28 of our report—to which I particularly draw to the attention of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—deal specifically with defences and the potentially reasonable excuses referred to in this group of amendments.

Clause 16 provides two defences, the first requiring the person to show that the

“action or possession was for the purposes of a journey to be made only by them”.

If it applies simply to the individual—and not, for instance, to couples travelling with children—it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the estimates, and I accept that they can only be estimates, of how many channel crossings in small boats are made by one person travelling alone, how many by couples and how many by family groups. I understand that we might not be able to have that information in Committee, but if we could have it between now and Report, I would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and, with the exception of the amendments in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench, to oppose them. It is always a pleasure, of course, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who brings great expertise to our proceedings.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have great respect, but I have to say that I slightly disagree with him. I have read the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I feel that the committee’s report in respect of precursor offences is less than compelling, if I am quite honest. I know that the Government will be, to a certain extent, circumscribed because they are not required to respond to the report until August; I am sure we would have benefited in this debate had we had the Government’s response. Nevertheless, the Government have made their position clear—and I support them in this respect—that Clauses 13 to 16 will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to tackle the supply chains for the people-smuggling networks, which I think is what we are all interested in doing.

Although the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, come from the right place and are well-meaning, the real-world impact of them is that they weaken the ability of the Government and the appropriate authorities to tackle people smuggling, because they significantly change the burden of proof in respect of evidence for criminal liability and culpability. That de facto reversal of proof is not in the public interest. So in some respects the result of these amendments being agreed would be pernicious and not in the public interest, and would militate against the strategic priorities of the Government that we support: smashing the gangs and reducing illegal migration.

I do not want to detain the House at this hour with a long discussion on what mens rea means, but it does mean “guilty mind”. There are different aspects—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

We will come to those arguments on mens rea. They are in later amendments. Perhaps the noble Lord would not want to jump ahead, because the groups of amendments dealing with that come in the next day in Committee on this Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord admonishes me for perhaps jumping slightly ahead, so I will revert to Clause 13 and put a question to the Minister. The honourable Member for the Weald of Kent in the other place, when considering the Bill in Committee, mentioned a potential loophole arising from the draft wording in Clause 13. I accept that, in terms of reasonable excuse, the Bill is caveated in that it is not a definitive position that you have no excuse whatever. It is right that, when you are dealing with individuals, even when they are involved in something as appalling as people trafficking and illegal migration, there should always be some discretion for the criminal justice system to exercise in adjudicating on their alleged offences.

However, there is a question to be asked about Clause 13(3) and the “reasonable excuse” caveat in terms of a loophole. Do the Government see that as problematic in terms of future litigation? I would not use the term “two-tier justice”, but certainly there is an element that speaks to the fact that, if you do not charge for services and you are seeking to rescue a person, that absolves you of criminal responsibility. There is an argument that that sends out a message.

My problem with this group of amendments is that they reduce the push factor and increase the pull factor. Those will be the real-world consequences of making it easier for people to argue that they have a reasonable excuse and did not possess an intent to commit these new offences. So, on this occasion, I will probably agree with the Minister that the House should resist the amendments.

I also pray in aid the example that the Immigration Minister, Angela Eagle, used in the other place. She prayed in aid the case in November 2024 of Amanj Hasan Zada, who organised cross-channel boat crossings from his home in Lancashire. He was jailed for 17 years after being found guilty on people-smuggling charges. It was very much the view of the National Crime Agency and others that, had the proposals contained in the Bill been in place, he would have been brought to justice much earlier, and that it was only because the authorities, particularly the NCA, did not have the ability to use the full force of law in respect of the legislation obtaining at the time that he was not stopped from his abhorrent activities at an earlier juncture.

I finish by saying that we all wish to see fair play and due process. We all want a legal system that does not discriminate on the basis of race, background, ethnicity, religion, and so on, but, equally, we have to be realistic, practical and pragmatic. In the real world, we need to reduce the pull factor and increase the push factor. I think these amendments would do exactly the opposite and, for those reasons, I hope the Committee is not minded to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I had asked the Minister about compliance with Article 31.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s report has been very helpful. We need to look at that issue, and we will respond to his report in short order. I cannot give him those details today, but I will ensure that they are dealt with in due course.

Immigration System

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord tries very well and very effectively to tempt me to talk about a cap or a figure that we are putting on success. Success for me is that we have a properly ordered, understood, managed system where people who wish to come to this country to work can understand clearly what the rules are; that we have rules that encourage the development of UK-based skills; that we have rules that do not deter people from enjoying the benefits of UK university education but at the same time put some strictures on when and how they should be employed afterwards or leave; and that we begin to tackle the issue of illegal migration in a fair and effective way, but allow people to seek asylum and have that asylum processed. That way, in three years’ time, I will stand here and be able to say to the noble Lord that, while he may not like the framework, there is a clear framework in place that tries to determine how we control our borders rather than just using rhetoric to try to control our borders.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday the Joint Committee on Human Rights began its legislative scrutiny of the borders Bill. Among the issues raised is, inevitably, Article 8, which the noble Lord has referred to. Given that this is not about directives from the European court but about differences of opinion between lower and upper-tier tribunals within the United Kingdom, we would all welcome greater clarity about what the Government’s interpretation of Article 8 duties actually is. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree that, as part of his consultations, he and his department will engage with the Joint Committee and also clarify for us what will be laid before Parliament that is not in the Bill and what is in the White Paper that will affect our considerations when the Bill comes forward? Do those things not need to be woven together?

May I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said? I declare an interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. The Minister will have seen the letters and emails sent to him, not least from myself and the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, deeply concerned about the reports of the backdating to 2020 of the situation of BNO holders in this country. No one could have integrated better. I salute what the previous Government did about the position of people escaping the tyranny of the Hong Kong dictatorship imposed by the CCP. I hope that the present Government will honour the commitments that were given to the BNO holders who arrived in this country legitimately and legally and will not in any way renege on the promises that were made.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can again reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to operate the resettlement and community sponsorship schemes, such as Homes for Ukraine and the Hong Kong BNO scheme. We will set out how we do that later on. I will agree to meet, as I have said with the Minister, to hear those concerns, but we will set those things out in due course.

On the Article 8 provisions, we want to try to ensure that it is the Home Office that, according to rules agreed by Parliament, determines how we deal with the European Convention on Human Rights while maintaining our membership of it. Therefore, rather than each individual case being subject to a fresh interpretation of Article 8, we will try and set down some general guidance on that as a whole, which I hope helps the noble Lord with his question.

I add one final thing, which is an important thing for our office. Mya Eastwood, who has been my principal private secretary since 4 July, is leaving tomorrow. I just want to pay my tribute to her, because a lot of work that goes on front of House is supported by officials back of House. Mya has done an excellent job, and I want to put that on the record today before I sit down.

Iranian State Threats

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I was trying to say to my noble friend—which I repeat now to the noble Lord—is that proscription is continually under review. It is possible to proscribe any organisation, and Governments have done that. If we do seek to proscribe, we bring orders before both Houses of Parliament to confirm that. The matter is under continual review. What I do not want to do is to give an indication to this House on whether or not the Government would take that step. However, with this Statement the Government have, for the very first time, sent a very strong signal to the Iranian regime that we will not tolerate its behaviour, by including it in the new FIRS scheme—the very first country to be included. When this scheme goes operational towards the end of the summer, there will be severe penalties for individuals who should register but do not. That is the general thrust, which, as with everything else, is still kept under review, and which I hope sends a very strong signal about the behaviour of the Iranian regime in the United Kingdom and internationally.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the possible proscription of the IRGC, but can he give us any idea how long it will be before Jonathan Hall’s report reaches the Home Office—is there a timeline for that? On transnational repression, the Minister knows that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is working with the Home Office on examining examples of Iranian transnational repression, and we have received evidence from BBC journalists and others who have been personally affected, including pro-democracy advocates. Last week, the Iranian regime’s court rejected the appeal of Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, who were both at risk of imminent execution. Hassani is a father of three; he was arrested in 2022 and taken to Evin Prison ward 209, where he was subjected to severe torture. Following his death sentence, he sent a message to the people of Iran:

“This execution-driven regime knows nothing else. I will not bargain over my life. I am prepared to give my humble life for the freedom of the Iranian people”.


In combating this terrorist state, will the Minister liaise with his FCDO colleagues to ensure that we co-ordinate our efforts to raise those cases with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the UN special rapporteur, in order to challenge the grossly wrong, unfair verdicts that have been delivered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I am not aware of whether representations have been made in the specific cases he mentioned, but it is a matter I will look into after today. I will write to him with a response from the Foreign Office on those matters; I understand that they are of an urgent nature, so I will do that for him today.

On transnational repression, let me be clear, as I have said already, that it will not be tolerated and it will not be supported. We will take action on these issues. If anyone is concerned for their safety in the United Kingdom, in the first instance they should contact the police, who have had training to ensure that they are aware of the potential threats and dangers. As I have already said, the police are raising both the awareness and capability of front-line officers and staff across the United Kingdom to include an understanding of how threats from foreign powers are presented and how to respond to reports made by members of the public to police forces about potential areas of local concern. The National Security Act, which had cross-party support, strengthened UK legal powers to counter foreign interference, including actions on what would amount to transnational repression. I assure the noble Lord that it is a matter of concern for the Government that we keep citizens safe in this United Kingdom, whatever their nationality.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. He will know that the UK Government will challenge the Chinese authorities where we think there are transgressions; this is one of those occasions. We will also co-operate with the Chinese authorities when we believe that we can work together and trade with them when we believe it is appropriate. However, his points are valid.

On the embassy, a planning application is in and will be determined under planning laws like any other planning application. It will be with my colleagues in the department for local government. The Home Office have already submitted a security note on it, as part of the planning application, and that will be considered in due course. I reassure the noble Lord that we take this matter extremely seriously and representations have been made, and will continue, at the highest level.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am patron of Hong Kong Watch and an officer of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong. The inconveniences and irritations experienced by the seven sanctioned parliamentarians, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and me, are nothing in comparison with the bounties placed on the heads of pro-democracy advocates such as the young woman Chloe Cheung. Letters delivered to their neighbours offer £100,000 for information on the pro-democracy activists or their delivery to the PRC embassy.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently conducting an inquiry into transnational repression. We are interested to know from the Minister what laws will have been broken if a dissident, or someone sanctioned or targeted by the CCP, is dragged into a PRC embassy or consulate. That has already happened in Manchester so this is not simply academic. What action, if any, would be taken? Would it be illegal? Would the diplomats be immune? What powers would be used to recover those who were seized?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reiterate what I said to the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Bench: we condemn this action. We have also seen the reports of letters being delivered to neighbours. We are trying to verify the source of those reports and of that information, but the police are certainly looking into this matter and are liaising with those who are in receipt of the letters. The police will assess, independently of government, whether action needs to be taken under any legislation we have to date.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord that, in the event of the circumstances he has described, the police and the Home Office would investigate whether illegal acts have been undertaken. It would be for the police, not the Home Office, to investigate independently in that event. I hope that our representations have been made very forcefully, and that the Chinese authorities will recognise them. We will monitor that situation accordingly.

Migrants: Indefinite Leave to Remain

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It should be the noble Lord, Lord Alton, next.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will have seen the letter that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has sent to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the plight and fate of those children who went missing from asylum accommodation, overseen by the Home Office at the time. What can he tell us about the numbers still involved, their plight or fate, and what more is being done to identify their whereabouts?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is a priority for the Government to track down and provide safeguarding measures for those children who went missing under the regime of the previous Government. There are approximately 80 to 90 for whom we do not have records of where they are now. It is priority to understand where they are. The responsibility for that lies not just with the Home Office but with local authorities, such as Kent, which had initial responsibility and now has responsibility for safeguarding issues. It is a priority to find them, and I shall update the noble Lord in due course.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I recall answering that it was a policy submission that we would reflect on. The important point for the Government is to do three things: first, speed up agreement on asylum claims to ensure that people with genuine asylum claims have a right to live here, and, presumably, will subsequently wish to work here; secondly, put in place Border Force control to stop illegal migration and gangmasters subverting the asylum system; and, thirdly, ensure that we reduce the asylum accommodation that we have, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young—cost and efficiency—and look at dispersed accommodation in the meantime. I will keep the policy suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord German, on the table as part of the contributions to discussions on how we achieve those three objectives.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that a few months ago University College London and ECPAT issued a report on the position of asylum-seeking children in these hotels. They found that dozens of children had been kidnapped by criminal gangs from hotels run by the Home Office; 440 children had gone missing, 144 had not been found and 118 were still unaccounted for. Is the noble Lord engaging with ECPAT and University College London about their report and can he update us on the figures—and, if not, can he write to us? Is he aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is engaging with the Home Office on this issue? I know him well enough to know that he will take a personal interest, but I hope he will commit today to doing so.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will update the noble Lord in due course. As a rough estimate from memory, around 90 children are still unaccounted for. The importance of safeguarding in asylum accommodation is critical. It is ultimately the responsibility of the local authority where those children are placed. However, I take on board his suggestions and concerns; I will look into them and write to him. It is key to ensure that the safeguarding of unaccompanied children and accompanied children who are at risk is paramount.

Immigration: Human Rights

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is not the Government’s intention to drag out the appeals procedure, or indeed the claims procedure. We have been trying since July to speed up the consideration of asylum claims. We have put additional staff in to do that. We want to get the decisions right first time, obviously, and that is an important part of the Government’s proposals to reduce both the asylum backlog and the dependency on hotels, which reached record levels under the previous Government.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in developing the helpful answer he just gave, can the Minister tell us what is the backlog of the outstanding number of cases? How long does it take to clear them on average? Rather than expecting people to subsist on around £7 a day, should we not look again at the opportunity to work while those claims are being considered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The total number of asylum claims waiting for an initial decision has fallen by 22%, from 125,173 at the end of September 2023 to 97,170 at the end of September last year. That figure of 97,170 cases, which relate to approximately 133,000 people waiting for an initial decision, is down 22% on the previous year but is 13% higher than in the previous quarter. We are trying to get the number down for the very reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German: that a large number of those cases will potentially go to appeal. That number includes individuals in hotels. The problem is that the previous Government put a moratorium on dealing with those issues. We are now trying to clear that backlog and give people a decision. Whether it is to stay or go, a decision is needed.

United Front Work Department

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the right reverend Prelate that the UK Government take human rights seriously and will, when necessary, make representations and consider action against a regime, be it China or otherwise, that abuses those rights as a matter of course. That is part of domestic foreign policy, and it will be taken into account in all our dealings. The question raised was predominately around the security interests of the United Kingdom, which we keep under consistent review, and we will take action if information is brought to our attention. I go back to my noble friend Lord Beamish; the security services are across this in every way, shape and form. They have warned about this publicly and are providing information constantly to Ministers about performance on these issues. We will take their advice about when the UK faces a specific threat and take into account human rights issues at the same time.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the work he did on the Intelligence and Security Committee. Will he reiterate to your Lordships’ House the findings of that committee that 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department had penetrated

“every sector of the United Kingdom economy”,

including our universities? Why then does the Prime Minister still refuse to officially declare China a threat, while Ken McCallum as head of MI5 says that infiltration is on an “epic scale”?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is taking an approach that is in the interests of the United Kingdom. That approach is about challenging where necessary and referring strongly when we have security information, as we have done this week, but looking at where there are areas of potential co-operation, because we cannot avoid the fact that China is a major player in a number of areas of influence and we have to look at how we can co-operate with it on areas where we have mutual interests. However, I take the point. The noble Lord knows, because it is in the report that I was party to with my noble friend Lord Beamish, that a significant number of states have offensive opportunities towards the United Kingdom. We need to take cognisance of that. That is what the security services are doing each and every day. When information comes to light, we will take action. In the next few months, we will complete the first scheme and bring proposals to both Houses to meet those threats.

Asylum Seekers: Wethersfield

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Well, let me remind the noble Lord that Wethersfield was opened on 21 March 2024, with an order laid in the name of the Home Secretary at the time—one James Cleverly. The starting point of the site was with the previous Government, which had planning permission for 1,700 places. This Government now has 580, which is capped, with the potential to look at a phased increase to a maximum of 800. We are trying to reduce the reliance on asylum. I cannot give the noble Lord a commitment on the site at this point, but the Government’s direction of travel and intention is to reduce the reliance on sites such as this. As he says, it is a very isolated site, in a very isolated part of Essex, and that should be reflected on, along with the other issues that he and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester raised.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, knowing that the Minister is deeply committed to trying to find a way forward on this issue, can I ask about what I think is his view, too: that we must tackle the root causes of displacement worldwide? There are 120 million displaced people, with a further 7.5 million in Sudan alone in the past 18 months because of the war there. What more can the Government do to tackle root causes by bringing together civilized nations to look at ways of stopping the flow of asylum seekers in the first place?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point: one that is on the Government’s agenda. He will know that, since July 5, the Prime Minister has made considerable efforts, meeting with European partners in particular to look at the flow across the Mediterranean and to take action on some of the long-term issues, which are linked war, climate change, hunger and poverty, as well as a small proportion who are involved in criminal activity and/or irregular migration for economic purposes. A number of the drivers can be solved by international action and it is on this Government’s agenda to do so.

Illegal Migrants

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome. She will know that it is in everybody’s interests to ensure both that we reduce crossings, which is why we have the border command in place, and that if people are here illegally and are caught they face the consequences; that is a prime government responsibility. As for asylum support, hotel accommodation is down 14% over this year. One of this Government’s objectives is to ensure that we reduce hotel accommodation, because it is an expensive way of housing people and a difficult way of tackling this problem. Maybe the noble Baroness would like to ask some former Ministers from her party why the figure went up in the first place to that level of asylum accommodation.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Has the Minister seen the 12th increase in consecutive years to a staggering 120 million people displaced worldwide? In Sudan alone, since the start of the war in 2023, another 7.5 million people, now 10 million, have become displaced. Does he not agree that if we are ever going to tackle this problem seriously, we have to get to the root causes? Can we in the United Kingdom use our convening power to bring together the great nations to find solutions to this terrible tragedy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord hits a very strong button on that issue. He will know, I hope, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary visited Italy only this week—or maybe at the end of last week—for a meeting of the G7 that looked at the whole issue of tackling criminal gangs, but also at some of the long-term underlying causes and why those movements are taking place. It is in all our interests to ensure that we tackle that, and stop the flow that then falls prey to those criminal gangs that exploit very vulnerable people from countries such as the one he mentioned. Those gangs take money from them for a visit that is futile because, if they are in this country illegally and do not have asylum claims, they will be returned to their home nation.