Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

35A: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to deport illegal arrivals(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person (“P”) to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to any person who—(a) commits an offence under section 24 (illegal entry) or 24A (deception) of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) enters or arrives in the United Kingdom at a time when they are an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments), or(c) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected,on, after or before the day on which this section comes into force.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the exceptions in subsection (5A) of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (exceptions to section 8B) do not apply.(4) Where P has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully by means of sea crossing, a deportation order must be made against P as soon as P is detained under section (powers of detention for illegal entrants).(5) Where P is given a deportation order under this section the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangements for the removal of P from the United Kingdom so as to ensure that P is removed from the United Kingdom within the period of one week beginning on the day that P is detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants).(6) Where a deportation order is in force against P under this section, the Secretary of State must give directions for P’s removal to either—(a) a country of which P is a national or citizen providing that country is a safe country, or(b) where a country of which P is a national or citizen is an unsafe country, to a safe third country.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) A “safe third country” means a country of which P is not a national or citizen but is considered to be a safe country under this subsection.(8) Where—(a) a deportation order is in force against P under this section, and(b) P has a child (“C”) who was born in the United Kingdom after P entered the United Kingdom unlawfully,the Secretary of State must also make a deportation order against C.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to deport, within one week, any person who entered the United Kingdom illegally or who has had their asylum claim rejected.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin this group of amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, by stating that they are directed at illegal entrants and not genuine refugees whose claims are upheld or who enter by legal routes.

We began Report with a discussion about the Government’s new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who, during an evidence session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, said:

“What we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing, there is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else”.


The Government’s own Border Security Commander himself recognises that there need to be changes to reduce the pull factors and create a deterrent effect. This year alone there have been 36,954 small boat arrivals. We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The Government have argued that their new “one in, one out” deal with France will take up that mantle, but all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working. It is not deterring illegal entry and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally.

These amendments would achieve the aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as with the other amendments we have tabled to the Bill, which will be discussed in later groups. The arguments in support of these amendments were well ventilated in Committee. Amendment 35A proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under Sections 24 or 24A of the 1971 Act, is an excluded person under Section 8B of that Act, or who has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35B is a corollary to that. It contains the power of detention and, accordingly, mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person. That person would be detained in a removals centre or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary’s behalf and the person must then be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention.

When people cross the border unlawfully, claim asylum and then remain in limbo, it undermines the integrity of our system. Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly question whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat that these amendments are not about genuine refugees but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants—illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected—and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.

Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.

First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.

Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.

Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.

The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.

These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.

For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.

As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.

Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome, and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Katz, for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I do not accept the criticisms that they made. I suggest that these amendments are responsible, pragmatic and necessary and would restore faith in the principle that sovereignty means that we decide who may enter, who may stay and who must be removed. The backlog of claims, the scale of illegal entries and the long delays in removals all speak to a system that lacks credibility, and these amendments would move us towards a stronger, fairer, more sustainable regime. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

35B: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of detention for illegal entrants(1) A person to whom this section applies (“P”) must be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State or the authority of an immigration officer for the purposes of P’s removal from the United Kingdom.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 (“A”), or(b) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected (“B”).(3) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained in a designated removal centre and may not be accommodated in any other form of accommodation.(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in subsection (3) to “any other form of accommodation” includes hotel accommodation, houses in multiple occupation and military bases. (5) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained for the relevant period.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” begins—(a) for A, on the day on which the person unlawfully enters the United Kingdom;(b) for B, the day on which the claim is rejected.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” ends on the earliest of the following—(a) for A, on A’s deportation from the United Kingdom;(b) for B, on B’s deportation from the United Kingdom.(8) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail) does not apply to a person detained under this section.(9) Section 141 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (fingerprinting) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).(10) In subsection (7), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any person (“DA”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025;”.(11) In subsection (8), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) for D or DA, on D’s or DA’s detention or arrest;”.(12) In subsection (9), in paragraph (b), for “or D,” substitute “,D or DA,”.(13) Regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are amended as follows.(14) In paragraph (7)—(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g)(ii), at the end insert “; and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) any person (“H”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(15) In paragraph (11) –(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g), at the end insert “;and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) for H, on H’s detention.”(16) In paragraph (12), after sub-paragraph (b), insert—“(c) for H, on H’s deportation from the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require any person that enters the United Kingdom illegally or has had their asylum claim rejected to be immediately detained in a removals centre, not a hotel or HMO, have biometric information collected, and then be deported within one week.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

On that basis, I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will comment favourably on this scheme, which is meant to help reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we unfortunately cannot support her amendment. This past year has seen the largest number of boat crossings since records began. We believe that the current Government are buckling under the numbers. It is a situation that calls for measures that disincentivise those considering making the dangerous crossing across the channel. It is not an answer to strengthen the incentives to come here and then wonder why there is more inflow and more of a public backlash—that would be the outcome of Amendment 37.

If we were to increase the periods of financial and accommodation eligibility, we would give migrants a significantly greater reason to come here, and the taxpayer would be burdened with an even greater bill. In fact, we know from reports last week that the asylum seeker deported from France under the Government’s “one in, one out” policy returned because he could not get housing in France. The only group of people that the amendment would benefit would be people smugglers, who make a living by trafficking humans and breaking our laws. Instead, we should take the opposite approach. If we want to stop the tragic deaths in the channel and ease public sentiment towards the asylum system, we should disincentivise those illegally arriving here.

We understand and acknowledge the sentiment behind Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, on Nightingale processing units, but at present cannot support that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.

I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.

Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.

The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.

As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.

It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.