UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I start by giving my registered interests. I am supported by the RAMP organisation. These Benches welcome the principle lying behind this deal for two reasons: first, it undermines the model that the smugglers use and, secondly, it creates an additional safe route. These Benches commend the Government for introducing this as a pilot, because it tests a new policy and develops it to make sure that it works, based upon experience, evidence and bringing the public with you, rather than upon making huge promises on an untested novel policy that loses public trust, spends a lot of taxpayers’ money, and exhausts Civil Service and parliamentary time. We can think of such a scheme, of course, in referring to the Conservatives’ Rwanda policy.

There are clearly many questions that sit behind the proposal before us but, since the Government are working at pace to implement it, the answers should now be available. I am hoping the noble Lord will tell me. First, as I have said, as the pilot will initially be quite limited in numbers to ensure that it works operationally, does the Minister agree that, to provide both a viable alternative for asylum seekers as well as a deterrent to small boats crossing, the scheme would need to be scaled up quickly? Those not in the pilot initially will add to the backlog of asylum claims, and the process by which they are judged will need to be speeded up. What progress has been made on the backlog of asylum claims in this country?

Secondly, there will undoubtedly have to be a process of screening and selection of those to be returned to France on arrival. Can the Minister confirm whether immigration detention will be used prior to removal to France and, if so, will it be for the whole or part of the period when they are in the United Kingdom? Thirdly, can the Minister confirm which aspects of existing legislation will be used to operate this pilot? For example, will elements of the Illegal Migration Act be used? Fourthly, the returns of migrants to France will need to be swift to provide a real deterrent. Will migrants who are to be returned to France be able to challenge this decision? Will adequate legal advice be available, as well as judicial time, to ensure that the process is swift while also ensuring people can have their position considered prior to removal? Fifthly, how will the Government ensure that migrants in northern France are informed about this scheme from trusted sources so that they are well aware of it in advance of choosing, perhaps, not to make a dangerous crossing? Sixthly and finally, the process of accessing safe routes to the United Kingdom is one that must be trusted by migrants. What have the Government learned from schemes elsewhere in the world, where providing a safe route significantly changed migrant behaviour and diverted them from irregular to safe routes?

Undoubtedly, there will be many more questions as the pilot expands and moves forward but, critically, at this point, I think behind these questions lies an acceptance that this has the potential to work. We wish it every success in that movement forward, which is why it is so important to answer these questions at this stage.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Harper.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have the pleasure of serving with her on the European Affairs Committee, she has great expertise and knowledge of these issues from her experience in the European Parliament, and she is our resident expert on these issues when we debate it in the committee. But she will know that we have had two separate inquiries which have covered these issues over the last year or so. One was on our and the EU’s policy on data adequacy, which is germane to the area of crime and policing; in particular, serious organised crime and the work of the NCA. More recently, of course, since the reset on 19 May we have been looking in forensic detail at the Government’s policy, as far as it is possible so to do.

Very briefly, the reason I have some concerns about these amendments—I reiterate the point made by my noble friend—is because I take the view, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The evidence the committee heard from the National Crime Agency was that we were making organic, incremental changes and things were improving since our exit from the European Union in 2021. A good example of that is that, as the noble Baroness well knows, British police forces are able to take the operational lead in some of these big cases, particularly involving the National Crime Agency, cybercrime, people trafficking and modern slavery. Therefore, this amendment would, in effect, tie the hands of Ministers quite closely in terms of the strategic objectives that they are aiming to deliver in this area.

We all want to work closely with our partners and friends in the European Union—the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip laughs, but he might try to listen to my remarks before being so presumptuous. We want to work closely with them, and we have worked closely over the last few years. There is more work to do on data adequacy, on sharing data. There are enduring problems about the view of the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union in terms of the legal purview they have and the oversight that they wish to have with regard to joint operations. But these amendments are rather heavy-handed and circumscribe the flexibility of Ministers.

Finally, there is an opportunity for proper scrutiny and oversight of the work of the NCA and others, by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, our European Affairs Committee, and directly on the Floor of this House and of the other place. So, for those reasons, I echo my noble friend. On this occasion, although the noble Baroness does an excellent job in helping us understand these issues from her unique experience, I hope she will see that her amendments are unnecessary.

[Lord German (LD)]

Interestingly, the challenge in the Bill before us is to smash the gangs. That was the statement from the Minister, and the issue of boats crossing the English Channel dominates the Bill and is the one that has been given the most effect. It was, of course, the previous Government who made this such a totem issue that they put it front and above all else, even putting it on the sides of lecterns inside 10 Downing Street. If the Government want to treat this matter—which is so important to the Benches on my right—with the Bill, as has been explained to us, we want to see how we best use our resources to tackle these problems in common.

As I explained earlier, I have visited the Pas-de-Calais to examine all these issues. I was with the French police just after they had arrested the driver of a German motor car that had a blanket over the back seat with teddy bears on top. Underneath was a dinghy of exactly the sort that I had seen on the beach, and which had been demonstrated to us as one of the types that are used. Those dinghies had come from Germany in a German car, the number plate of which I have a photograph of, whose driver was arrested at the French border. I was told quite clearly by the officials there that these things come from across Europe, and that all the machines and bits and pieces are collected and used by different countries. Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Turkey, as well as France and the UK, are all involved in this. Quite clearly, it would be right for the Bill to examine the level of cross co-operation between the forces which are to deal with this.

Europol is, of course, the agency on the continent, and is the one that particularly reflects the chain I have just described. The scope of the relationship between us and Europol is defined by the TCA. I have seen no amendments relating to that agreement, but I am hopeful, as I know many Members of this House are, that we will see big changes to the TCA, which has not been used to give us the best result. It is quite clear that our relationship with Europol is defined by it.

The scope of the co-operation is laid out clearly in Article 567. I will not read everything out, but it includes

“the exchange of information … reports … analysis … information on … participation in training … and … the provision of advice and support”.

Nowhere does it mention joint co-operation in activities to deal with the issues before us. I know that there has been some action, because we have seen it reported. The important aspect is the depth of that action with the body that has responsibility for policing these serious crimes across the parts of the European Union where this matter is arising.

I have some questions on the specifics. First, what is the level of operational development between the British forces and Europol? Have we designated a national contact point, as the agreement outlines, and how many liaison officers do we have? The TCA, to which the previous Government agreed, says:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure that its liaison officers have speedy and, where technically possible, direct access to the relevant domestic databases of the United Kingdom that are necessary for them to fulfil their tasks … The number of liaison officers, the details of their tasks, their rights and obligations and the costs involved shall be governed by working arrangements”.


We need to know what the “working arrangements” are, and whether we have those liaison officers in place. My second question is therefore on the structural relationship. Do we have these liaison officers in place, and are there officers from Europol inside the UK and vice versa? That is what the TCA, which was agreed to by the previous Government, says should happen.

The third element is whether the scope of co-operation in this document is sufficient to tackle the problems that we are now facing with this chain of operations across Europe, and which end up with us. This is an important issue, because we are talking about a serious crime that is being reflected across parts of Europe as well as in the United Kingdom. The relationship is important to us, because it includes the people with the operational ability, but we of course need to know whether there is co-operation in that operational ability. Without understanding that, we cannot be reassured that this matter—which, according to the Conservative Party, is at the top of the issues that the country is facing—will be tackled properly.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I knew it would be only a matter of time before the debate turned to the European Union. However, I offer some support on this amendment, which seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement on co-operation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol. I do so not out of any dogmatic enthusiasm for greater institutional integration with the European Union, but because it touches on something far more important—that the Government should have a duty to come before Parliament and the British people and show us the work they have been doing to smash the gangs.

We have all these questions already—how many gangs have been dismantled, how many people smugglers have been arrested and what impact that has had on the scale of the crossings—so, once this Bill comes into force, the pressure on the Government to answer them will be even greater. To that end, we think the requirement to report these numbers should be set out in law. This amendment speaks to earlier provisions tabled in our name in which we called for greater transparency about enforcement outcomes. If the Government are serious about stopping the boats, breaking the business model and restoring control, they should welcome the opportunity to show Parliament the evidence.

However, I strike a note of caution. While co-operation with Europol is undoubtedly important, it must be driven by operational need, not ideological nostalgia. This Bill cannot be a backdoor to deeper alignment for its own sake. What matters is whether the relationship delivers results and helps our agencies do their job more effectively. If it does, let us support it; if it does not or if resources would be better deployed elsewhere, we must retain the flexibility to make those choices. I support the principle behind the amendment: let us have the data, see the progress and ensure that decisions about operational co-operation are rooted in the fight against serious crime and not some broader desire to turn back the clock on Brexit. That is the balanced and pragmatic path forward.

The same principle of operational demand underpins our opposition to Amendment 101. We have spoken a lot about giving our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, but we cannot tie their hands. With respect to the noble Baroness, I believe that our authorities can be trusted to determine whether a joint task force with Europol is necessary and I do not think that compelling them to do this in law is particularly sensible.

Our concerns are much the same with Amendment 206. While I am sure that it is well intentioned, I will speak against it. However worthy its stated aim, it rests on a flawed premise: that this Chamber, and individual Members, should be in the business of directing operational law enforcement resources from the Floor of Parliament. Of course we expect the Government to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are adequately resourced. That is a basic responsibility. What I find more difficult to accept is the idea that we should begin legislating where those resources must go, as if we are better placed than the professionals to determine strategic priorities, operational partnerships or the most effective deployment of personnel and technology. Respectfully, what qualifies the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to decide by statute how the National Crime Agency or our police forces should engage with Europol? Are we to micromanage from your Lordships’ House the balance between domestic enforcement and international co-operation? I do not believe those on the front line will thank us for it.

We should not forget that enforcement against illegal migration and human trafficking is a complex, fast-evolving challenge. It requires flexibility, responsiveness and operational freedom, not rigid legal mandates handed down from Westminster. If law enforcement agencies judge that Europol operations offer the best return on effort and resources, then they will and should participate. But if priorities shift or if intelligence and tactical realities require a different focus, they must be free to act accordingly.

This is a debate not about whether we support the fight against people smuggling—we all do—but about whether we think Parliament should start signing away operational discretion and tying the hands of those we rely on to deliver results. That is not a responsible use of legislative power. We need to be guided by practical application, not political aspiration. Let the experts lead and let Government support them in doing so, not box them in. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that this is a complex challenge and that the Government are trying to undertake a range of measures to address it. He will also know—we will return to this in more detail later—that, with the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme, we have been able both to process more applications on asylum and to remove people from hotels and shut more hotels. We have also been able to provide greater investment in the sort of co-operation that the Border Security Commander will undertake shortly, and I believe that continued pressure will be placed on that issue. The noble Lord knows that it is a difficult challenge—I am not denying that—but we have a duty to disrupt, and that disruption involves close co-operation with Europol.

I get the sense—I mean this in the nicest possible way—that these are probing amendments to get a view from the Government on the issues around Europol; all three press the Government on where we are with that. The noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, have challenged the drafting and objectives of the relevant clauses. I will address the first two amendments as probing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord German, which seek to determine what we are doing with Europol. I accept those challenges and will respond to them.

The Border Security Commander—the legal framework for such a role is in the early clauses of the Bill—will work with a range of international bodies, including Europol, to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, recognising that an international solution is required for the current international, cross-border set of challenges. The recent Organised Immigration Crime Summit brought together over 40 countries and law enforcement bodies, including Europol to unite behind a new approach to dismantle people-smuggling gangs and to deliver on the people’s priorities for a securer border. The amendments are pressing us to address that.

First, there is the argument for an annual report to Parliament. Under the Bill, the Border Security Commander has to provide an annual report to Parliament and his work is very closely linked to that of Europol. We have a very strong relationship with Europol currently and a significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The Home Office will continue to work with Europol to deliver the Government’s border security objectives, and the Border Security Commander has a key role in Europol being one of the agencies through which our objectives are being set.

To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord German, on joint working with Europol, we have 20 officers embedded as liaison officers in Europol headquarters, with teams across the European community. It would be challenging, and perhaps—dare I say—inappropriate to set statutory requirements that would seek to establish joint taskforce operations when these are currently operational decisions.

Those operational decisions have the full support of government to work closely with Europol to help with data, criminal investigations and to ensure that we work in partnership. That is vital, given that many of the criminal gangs are operating in the European Community—in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. That is why the Border Security Commander, as well as working closely with Europol, has established and worked with the Calais Group, its member states being France, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom, looking at close co-operation in those areas.

We are ensuring that we have adequate resources for law-enforcement agencies to enhance participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. There is regular interaction with Europol, and the commander is already providing strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats to UK border security, protecting the UK border and going after the people-smuggling gangs. We believe that the legislation strikes that operational balance but also ensures that law enforcement and the UK intelligence community are supportive of the commander’s approach. By establishing that clear direction and leadership, we are creating a strong, cohesive system to boost the activities of Europol as a whole.

There is a very strong operational relationship with Europol, led by the National Crime Agency. The director-general of the National Crime Agency regularly meets with his counterpart, Catherine De Bolle, to discuss relevant matters. The commander himself has engaged heavily with law enforcement since being appointed. We have doubled our presence at Europol, and we hosted Interpol’s general assembly in Glasgow in November 2024. We have also increased the number of embeds from the National Crime Agency in European organisations such as Europol.

On an operational and strategic level, it is in the interests of both Europol—the European Community—and the United Kingdom to have that close co-operation. That is why in the period post the Brexit referendum, I and others argued for that strong relationship: because it was important. As the noble Baroness said herself, a UK citizen, Rob Wainwright, was the leader of Europol when we were in the European Community.

I hope that there is not a sliver of difference between us. However, going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, the amendments demand an annual report and taskforce co-operation, with us determining a third-party taskforce to be co-operated with. They also demand areas of resource—which we are dealing with, without the attack on operational independence that that approach may involve.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for the explanation he has given so far, which I think indicates a surprising level of progress, given where we started from with the agreement that preceded this. The Minister has kindly told us that we have officers embedded in The Hague. Does Europol have similar officers embedded in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is probably best if I reflect on that, because although I know who is embedded in Europol, I do not know offhand, unless I can find some inspiration in the next few seconds—I fear that I may have to check. I say that simply because this Minister and this Government are responsible for National Crime Agency liaison; we are not responsible for the Europol aspect of liaison with us. Rather than give the noble Lord an unhelpful answer, if he will allow me I will reflect on that in due course and give him a specific answer in writing, post this very helpful set of amendments, which I still hope will not be pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I just want to correct the noble Lord. I cast a vote two weeks ago, along with other Members of this House and of the House of Commons, for the senior judge from the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights. He is the only elected British judge who exists.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The European Court of Human Rights is not recognised as a traditional court of jurists as one would recognise, for instance, the US Supreme Court. Many of the people representing their countries are from NGOs who have vested interests in different areas. It is not comparable to our own Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court and many others. I stand to be corrected.

This is the debate we had during the discussions and deliberations on the safety of Rwanda Act. The erroneous notion that international law is sovereign over the UK Parliament, and that we cannot pass laws contrary to international treaties such as the ECHR, is pernicious and hugely undermines the faith and trust the electorate have in our governance. Such a notion was explicitly refuted in a Supreme Court ruling in 2021.

Real demonstrable damage is being done by such mischaracterisation and errors. The excellent report for the Centre for Policy Studies authored by my noble friend Lord Lilley, recently published, highlights that the proportion of asylum claims granted first time jumped from 25% in 2010 to 67% in 2023. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case. Why are we so out of step with so many other countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Germany? Some 42,000 asylum seekers are awaiting appeal outcomes, with 40% citing human rights grounds.

This Government have instead doubled down on lawfare, on the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law. Today the newspapers report that our Attorney-General has apparently appointed himself as Deputy Prime Minister with an effective veto over all government policy and a “snitch clause”, encouraging civil servants to dob in Ministers who fall foul of the Attorney-General’s zealous, unbalanced and damaging interpretation of international law. This extends to vetoing potential domestic legislation. It will not end well.

To finish, this Government had a great opportunity to consolidate and build on the work we had done in government, and we would have cheered them on and wished them well. It is a matter of great regret for the future of our country, for people who are looking to government to protect the safety and security of our borders, that they were not able to do that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends in opposing this clause. While I will try to avoid repeating what my noble friends have already said, to take a starting point, I did speak in the debate at the other end on this because it was important that, as has already been somewhat alluded to, this turned out to be quite a significant deterrent.

I appreciate that the Minister may disagree with my interpretation, but he will remember that when this started happening and became law, people started moving to Ireland, to Dublin. People left this country because they were concerned about being caught up in the process of being sent to Rwanda. People could see it with their own eyes. In 2022 the number of crossings meant that 45,000 people came to our shores through small boats, then it started to fall when the Prime Minister at the time announced that. Once there was legal wrangling, all of a sudden the number of people coming across on illegal crossings started to rise again. The numbers cannot be refuted.

I appreciate that this was in the Labour Party’s Change manifesto for government, which estimated that it would save £75 million a year by scrapping this policy. It also anticipated that it would save, I think, a few hundred million pounds more by ending hotels. That has not happened either.

Nevertheless, in the first half of this year, we have seen 20,000 people coming to these shores. That is a significant uplift and, with no deterrent, there seems to be no change in the trend. I hope that what the Prime Minister has announced while we have been debating this amendment will be successful. I will not repeat the questions from my noble friend Lord Harper.

It is critical to come back to aspects of the constitutional arrangement, which is why we ended up where we were. We had had the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, then the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I am not going to debate that, because we will come on to it later in Committee. The High Court having ruled in favour of the then Government, the Court of Appeal and then five members of the Supreme Court spoke unanimously. I think it was perfectly valid for the UK Government, who were responsible for international relations, to try to correct how Rwanda had been maligned by those five judges. Yes, that was also considering representations made by lawyers and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, but nevertheless, as I think I referred to previously, Rwanda is a prominent member of the Commonwealth. It is a nation that joined the Commonwealth because of values. The Commonwealth does not let just anybody in. Also, Rwanda had just recently held the presidency of the Commonwealth. That in itself is no mean feat. So it was perfectly valid of the Government. As we know, if judges come up with a decision that Parliament does not like, the recourse is for Parliament to then put in place a new law. That is why I was more than happy to support that legislation at the time.

I respect that this is a manifesto commitment, but it feels very tokenistic. As my noble friend Lord Horam pointed out, the scheme in Australia involved a number of factors, not only the offshoring and processing but the turn away policy—how the Australian navy worked with boats—but nevertheless it was clear that the Government were not going to accept illegal criminal activity. We all know that the smugglers do not care whether people live or die as they push them out into the very dangerous channel. This is just one line in a campaign, and I think the Government will come to regret not having something effective in this regard. As I say, we will come on to the Illegal Migration Act later.

I encourage the Government to think carefully about what happened and to recognise that every time they undermine the deterrent, unfortunately, the number of people handing over thousands of pounds to smugglers will just increase. I am sure nobody in this Committee wants to see that.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this clause in the Bill and support the Government’s action. The rest of it was very irresponsible. Getting rid of that project, which was announced in this Chamber by the Labour Party leader at that time, was the right thing to do. It also means that we can have better standing with our international colleagues, as we have had already with the UNHCR and with the French President, who was quoted as saying that this was a way of getting a better relationship with France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for this debate on Clause 37. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for forcing them to go through it yet again. I admire their tenacity and that of those on all sides who were in this House at the time for sticking at it and making this House’s views known to the then Government during the passage of what became the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Clause 37 repeals the Act in its entirety. There is an honest disagreement between me and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Jackson, Lord Harper and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as to the objectives of the Government. I will try to explain why we have that honest political disagreement.

This Government have taken a view that the Act was expensive, ineffective, contrary to human rights legislation and not greatly meaningful in its delivery of the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, outlined clearly, including the potential for a deterrent. Between the signing of the agreement on 14 April 2022 and the formation of the new Government on 5 July, 83,500 people arrived in small boats, with 31,079 of them arriving in the year to March 2024. Deterrent or not, I do not think that individuals who were arriving were closely monitoring the passage of that Bill. They were looking at the principles behind it, and there was no deterrent there.

As to cost, I used the figure of £700 million, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked me to break it down for him. I am happy to help him with that figure: £290 million was paid to the Rwandan Government as an arrangement fee; £50 million was spent on flights, contemporaneous and in advance; £95 million was spent on detention centres; £280 million was spent on the fixed costs of the scheme. I confess that I slightly underestimated in saying £700 million, because £715 million has been spent to date. If we look at the savings that potentially are in play and not just at the £715 million that we spent, we find that we have potentially saved £100 million in upcoming annual payments to Rwanda, and a further £120 million that the UK would otherwise be liable to pay once 300 individuals had been relocated to Rwanda. That is without the additional internal staffing and operational costs in government to date.

I remind the Committee that with the £715 million, plus the further costs, four people went to Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is indicating to me that the scheme did not have time to develop, but four people went to Rwanda. If not all of them, the majority of them were volunteers. Is that a good use of taxpayers’ money? Let us not rely on me, who has a manifesto commitment on this issue, which the Government are implementing. I happened to be in Committee on Monday 8 July, when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said:

“I also happen to think that many of us opposed the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish—because it was not going to work. That is why we opposed it”.—[Official Report, 8/7/25; col. 1248.]


When I was nobbut a lad in the Labour Party and the then John Selwyn Gummer was a Minister, I never thought I would stand up in the House of Lords several years later and say, “I agree with John”, but I agree with John, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it was a load of old rubbish. That is from a Conservative Back-Bencher who has held very high office in government.

I appreciate that three former Members of Parliament in another place—four, in fact, with the noble Lord, Lord Horam—expressed a view, but it is not one that I share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment. I am afraid—and she will not be surprised, I suspect—that I broadly disagree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said. Let me set out the reason why.

First, she mentioned that the Home Secretary changed her mind and wondered why that might have been. I obviously cannot get inside the Home Secretary’s mind. I suspect what has changed, between chairing the Home Affairs Committee and now, is that she is now the Home Secretary and responsible for protecting the borders and the security of the United Kingdom. Whoever holds that responsibility is sometimes confronted with reality; despite things that they might have liked to have done, they are confronted with the reality of keeping the country safe. What the Home Secretary, I suspect, will have realised is that there is a cohort of people here who she thinks should be removed, as they have no legal right to be here, and she has realised that unless you detain them, you are not able to carry out your functions of keep the country safe.

Now, I do not know whether that is the reason why—the Minister may or may not confirm it—but I suspect that the realities of office have changed her mind, for this reason. We do not detain people indefinitely. The power to detain people is in order to facilitate their removal from the country and to protect the public. The Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds to believe that, and people are able to challenge that through the judicial process.

The noble Baroness quoted some statistics; I will quote the same statistics but the other way around. Two-thirds of people are detained for 28 days or fewer. It is true that some people are detained for a long period of time. In most of those cases, the reason for the lengthy detention is the responsibility of the individual themselves: it is because they are trying to avoid being removed from the country that they have no legal right to be in, throwing up legal challenge after legal challenge. That is the reason why they are detained. If they wish to cease being detained, they could comply with the deportation order that they have been issued by the Home Secretary, get on a plane and leave the country. It is the fact that they do not wish to comply with the law that means they are held in detention.

The Home Secretary must have a reasonable belief that she can ultimately remove them—otherwise, she would not have the legal power to detain them. If we were to have what the noble Baroness suggests, which is a fixed statutory time period of 28 days, all that would do would give a bigger incentive to people with no right to be in this country to legally challenge decisions. Unless you could get all those legal challenges heard and decided within 28 days, all those people would have to be let out of detention, and we would cease to be able to remove any of them from the country. That would include some people who are not just here illegally but a present danger to people in this country. I strongly support the ability of the Home Secretary to detain people and not to have a fixed time limit, which would simply be an incentive for those people to delay.

If the noble Baroness looks into the details of who stays here in detention for a long period of time, it is people trying to avoid having to leave the country when they have no right to be here, throwing up legal challenge after legal challenge. The alternative way of dealing with it, if you really want not to detain people, is to reduce the opportunities for them to challenge the decision, and for deportation orders to be able to be carried out swiftly. Then we would not need to detain people. I am afraid that I suspect the Home Secretary has realised that detention is necessary to protect the public and to make sure that we can enforce the necessary deportation decisions.

I understand why people do not like it, but I am afraid it is a bit naive to think that everyone who comes to this country, or who overstays their welcome and is in this country without legal authority, goes when they are asked to. You sometimes have to use the power of the state and detention, and you sometimes have to enforce their removal, because otherwise they do not go. If you do not demonstrate that you have a robust system, you will have even more people coming here because they think that, once they get here, they are never going to be removed.

One of the important reasons for having a deterrent is that, if you look at the total number of people we remove, you want to get to a position where the balance between enforced removals and those who go voluntarily is much more in favour of those who go on a voluntary basis, because it is quicker and cheaper for everybody, but that happens only if people realise they are going to have to go at some point. If people think they can get away with staying when they have no right to be here, we have to use the powers that we have at our disposal. I accept that it is not ideal, but I am afraid there are limited choices for Ministers if they want to enforce a robust immigration system. Detaining and removing people where necessary ensures you command the confidence of the public that you have a robust system. If that confidence disappears, the public will not support anybody coming here, whether legally or not. As I have said in debates on earlier clauses, that would be a tragedy.

[Lord German (LD)]

I support the amendment for the removal of Section 12 and will address one or two of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made. I agree with him that voluntary methods of return are obviously the best. They are usually done very speedily and without fuss. When the explanation is provided and people have had the chance to have that internal conversation, they work very well indeed. So I would put that as a number one factor in this whole issue of how you remove people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I will respond very briefly to the points that have been made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which are, in fact, quite complex, if you look at the range of matters that have been discussed.

First, in trying to be comprehensive, you have to touch a lot of corners. As was described earlier in this debate, and in the debate on Tuesday, the real problem that we are facing is, first, identification and making sure that people who are identified are not punished, and then making sure that they have a swift process through the machinery of the NRM—national referral mechanism—and are then helped to move into a better life. There have to be changes in legislation to bring that together, which is why this suite of amendments is in place.

I have heard references to “international law”. I have to keep saying that it is actually Members of this Parliament who vote to make these international legal frameworks happen. I was not a member of the Council of Europe when that protocol and convention were put in place, but if a framework has the support of the United Kingdom delegation, which is substantial and cross-party, that means it is something that we are contributing to. That is the issue about international frameworks and laws that we set ourselves: we are very much part of the machinery that makes them and puts them in place, especially in the Council of Europe, where I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly.

I understand why the Home Office argues that modern slavery protections are being abused by people who falsely claim that they are victims to avoid deportation, or who seek to keep serious offenders in the country who would otherwise be removed. I understand that argument, but where is the evidence for that widespread abuse? Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could tell us whether there has been a sufficient number of cases to lead us to believe that there is abuse of the current system. If there is not widespread abuse, there must be protections and ways in which the Government can deal with these outliers where they think they might happen in the process.

In conclusion, as we heard on Tuesday from the noble Baroness, Lady May, the situation is not improving; it is getting worse, and more adults are being confirmed as victims of trafficking. So we certainly have to come back to this matter to ensure that we have the right legislative underpinning to make it happen.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yet again, by speaking against the amendments in this group.

I shall touch on each one briefly, starting with Amendment 103, which would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, as set out in the explanatory note. The explanatory note provided by the noble Baroness has a flaw. It fails to recognise that Section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to which her amendment ultimately pertains, refers both to a person who has claimed to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking in bad faith and to a person who is a threat to public order. Let us be clear about who we are talking about in these amendments: people who have tried to use modern slavery protections in bad faith and people who are a threat to public order and public safety for British citizens. The clause as it stands would allow the Government to remove these people from the United Kingdom and ensure that they would not be eligible for indefinite leave to remain as a result of their claims made in bad faith of eligibility and the modern slavery protections.

We on these Benches raised our concerns about those who would seek to exploit loopholes in modern slavery protections at some length earlier this week. The provisions in Clause 29 of the Illegal Migration Act seek to address this by allowing the Government to identify bad actors who are abusing the system and to remove them from the United Kingdom. Not to do so would be an insult to all those people who suffer at the hands of slave-masters and who should rightly hold a genuine entitlement to protection. The amendment seeks to apply those protections to those who are acting in bad faith or those who are a threat to public order. It is no wonder that even this Government have decided, in their drafting of the Bill, to keep this provision in force.

I seriously question why the noble Baroness seeks to question modern slavery protections in such a way. As such, we cannot support the amendments.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

There are practical implications to this. If an individual presents as a victim or witness of labour abuse but is in this country unlawfully, surely the state has an interest in understanding their immigration status, both for their own protection and for the broader integrity of our immigration system. It is vital for the well-being, safety and security of everyone involved that we understand who is here, on what basis, and whether they are at risk of further harm or criminal exploitation. This amendment would prevent that link being made. It would ask our agencies to act with one hand tied behind their back, able to hear a report of labour abuse but not allowed to use that information to cross-reference immigration records, not even for the purpose of assessing vulnerability risk or appropriate support routes. Paradoxically, this may make it harder, not easier, to protect those most at risk. Of course, there must be safeguards; of course we must build trust with those reporting exploitation, but trust cannot come at the cost of operational paralysis or the inability to detect abuse in the first place. I urge noble Lords to think carefully about supporting this amendment, which may feel principled but in practice may undermine our ability to enforce the law, support victims and secure our borders.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I need to declare my regular interest in the RAMP organisation, which provides support for me and for other Members of this House across all parties. I want to start by reflecting on Amendment 190, which is about protecting trafficked people and those coerced, in many cases, into coming into this country. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, just referred to the session a few weeks ago here in the Palace of Westminster where we heard testimonies from people and how they managed to get out of the modern slavery circumstance in which they found themselves. It is important that those migrant workers are able to report their abuse without fear of the other part of the system coming in and saying, “Well, you’re here illegally and we won’t deal with your case of being coerced to come here in the first place first”.

It is a matter of which part of the system you put first. The amendment tries to make sure that we can protect those being coerced and not subject them immediately to questions about their immigration status rather than about the coercion they have received. It would be good if these things could be worked together, but the harsh reality is that they are not. Migrant workers have heightened vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and are less likely to report it. In many of the cases that we heard of here in this Palace, people were literally running away with nothing, but they could not run away until they had someone they could run to. They feared that the authorities would prioritise their insecure immigration status over the harm that they had received. That is the balance this amendment is trying to correct.

This concern is well founded. Evidence indicates that individuals’ personal data is frequently shared between labour market enforcement agencies, the police and immigration enforcement. This occurs despite the absence of any legal obligation for labour market enforcement agencies or local authorities to verify workers’ immigration status or report those with insecure status to the Home Office. Unscrupulous employers are able to capitalise on this fear with impunity, and it pushes down wages and conditions right across the board. That is the purpose of this amendment, and I commend it to the Minister. In explanation at the end, perhaps he could say how we can deal with the issues of people trying to escape from coerced, abusive and exploitative labour and how that can be dealt with effectively when the other part of the system is working against it.

I want to refer to the amendment on which I pressed the Minister on Tuesday. I am grateful for him pointing out where it is, because the only point that I wanted to make on it was that the requirement now is for the Minister to consult the devolved Governments rather than simply to take note of them, which I thought perhaps was the indication we were getting from his earlier letter. I am pleased that the amendment requires that he should do so.

On GDPR, I understand why the Conservatives have come to this position, because they simply say that everybody coming to this country by irregular means is illegal. Of course, they do not want their cases to be heard; they just want to get rid of them again. Thankfully, in further amendments we are going to deal with today, we are going to remove that universality of approach, assuming that this House passes the Bill in the way that the Government have laid it before us. It is important that GDPR applies to everyone in the UK, including those in the criminal justice system undergoing investigations. Universality in that sense has been a principle of our law, and we should stick to it and not create illegality when it does not necessarily exist.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for commencing this afternoon’s consideration and for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before addressing the points made by noble Lords on their own amendments, I just want to point out government Amendment 96 to Clause 33 in this group, which I will come back to in a moment.

I will begin by addressing the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which have been reflected elsewhere. He may know that during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act, we as the Official Opposition and I as the then shadow Immigration Minister moved amendments. I do not need to see—with due respect now—a 10-year-old photograph of us to reflect on that, but if he wishes to pass it to me, I may have to. In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through. We want to look at the visa rules to ensure that they are operating fairly and properly. It is not related directly to the amendments before us today, but I just wanted to place that on the record again for the noble Lord.

Government Amendment 96 in my name does indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, amend the consultation requirements in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations about the purposes related to policing in connection with the trailer registration data that may be used by the police and onwards shared by the police and the Home Office in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill. Clause 33(8) creates a power to make police regulations to specify the purposes related to policing and, as currently drafted, the clause creates a duty to

“consult such of the following persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

and lists Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and police representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have been so ably supported across the Committee—pretty much every voice so far has been in support of them. They are a very useful humanitarian mirror to arguments that have been made on the previous group about the importance of data sharing for law enforcement purposes.

Amendments 97 and 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very much endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Alton, on the need for even more breadth and possibly a government amendment. These amendments are very sympathetic to the Government’s stated policy of smashing the gangs et cetera. It is a perverse outcome to hear that people who were trying to satisfy the Government’s legal and practical requirements for family reunion are having to resort to people smugglers. So, with respect, I hope that the Minister will see that this is a no brainer in terms of the practical facilitation of government policy.

Finally, I talked about these amendments being very much the humanitarian mirror of the need sometimes to share data—in this case, biometric information—for the purpose of giving effect to lawful family reunion. Please do not shoot the messenger, but I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the Data Protection Act and the UK GDPR contain very broad law enforcement exemptions, but broad is not blanket. I hope I can say to Conservative noble Lords that it is one thing to have a broad law enforcement exemption, but another to have blanket immunity from data protection. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want, for example, data controllers to be negligent or not to maintain a secure system so that sensitive information, even about potential criminals, was dumped on the internet, easily hacked or simply negligently maintained. Data controllers, particularly public authority data controllers, and especially of sensitive information, should at least have to maintain a proper, secure system. Yes, data should be shared for law enforcement purposes where that is necessary and proportionate, but they should not be totally negligent with this information.

I hope that provides some reassurance on that issue. In any event, if it does not, the Minister has already said that he can write.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. The amendments in my noble friend’s name, which I have signed, are, I think, well received across the Committee as a whole. On top of that, I must repeat the welcome for Clauses 34 and 35, which seek to increase flexibility when taking biometric information. I do not want to repeat the cases that have been talked about during this debate but shall simply speak about the practicalities of how this change might take place.

I have had experience of bringing people here for a short time and requiring their biometric information, which was sent from one country to another. Very helpfully, British Foreign Office officials in one country put the machine in the boot of their car and drove it to the other country—I am not going to give the details because otherwise they might get into trouble. Regularly, they have taken the biometric information of people who have visited the noble Lord’s part of Wales, among others; that that might give him a clue. I read today in the newspapers that the Government are to provide Home Office officials with portable biometric equipment. In my day, these things were small enough to go in the boot, but they are obviously going to be even smaller. So, in practical terms, taking biometric information is no longer a matter of using a large machine. Similarly, when you go to hospital for a scan, it is no longer done by big machines. This machinery is getting smaller, and we are now talking about portable methods. Clearly, that can be done, and it makes it more straightforward to take the machinery closer to people who are fulfilling the legal route that the Government have set in front of them. Of course, we should remember that, in 2024, 10,000 of those who came on family reunion were children.

The second thing is whether the Government are interested in using other bodies to take the biometric information. I do not know what the Government have already done on this matter—I saw the Minister checking his phone—but, clearly, if we are to have family reunion, and if President Macron has decided that biometrics can be taken in France, at least that might give some of the information we will need to know anyway about these matters.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendment 60. This clause, again, is about collecting information and reasonable excuses.

Clause 16(8) provides a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses. Our amendment is probing. We would like to see as many good reasons as are likely—I emphasise good reasons—in the legislation, rather than on each occasion being assessed by, in the first instance, someone fairly junior. In Clause 16(8), there is provision for an action or possession being for the purpose of

“providing, or preparing for the provision of, medical care or emergency shelter or supplies”.

Our amendment would insert “humanitarian support”. It seems that there is no difference between us as to the importance of promoting human welfare, so referring to it in the Bill follows from that.

I have been prompted having heard of so many refugees—I do not know whether this is a good example of a humanitarian matter or not—being keen to progress their education, or to work in a profession or another activity for which they have qualifications, but not when they get here being able to prove what qualifications they have. Bringing a document showing those qualifications would not be for the purposes of a “relevant journey”, but it is not irrelevant either to an asylum seeker for his or her future life. As I say, this is a probing amendment.

Amendment 60 concerns a matter raised by the organisation Justice and would except from the offences a person carrying out a legal activity, as defined—in other words, providing legal services. Perhaps I should declare—there have been a lot of declarations this afternoon and evening—that I was a solicitor, but that feels like a million years ago, so it is not personal. Everyone involved in the Bill will be aware of the shortage of good lawyers working in this field and available to undertake work on a legal aid basis or through a charity. The Bill is drafted widely, so it does not necessarily preclude the defence that it is for legal services, but I do not think that would be a huge encouragement to lawyers who might be worried about exposing themselves to a charge.

Lawyers, as a breed, are not always popular and are not always, in this field, trusted by the Government of the day, because the work almost inevitably means challenging the Government. If we are not further to risk access to justice, which is already an issue, we should not add further deterrents to legal practice in the asylum and refugee field. So the amendment proposes a specific exemption from prosecution.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, there are only two amendments in this group, both of which are from my colleague and noble friend Lady Hamwee. They both probe whether providing humanitarian support and legal services is a reasonable excuse in the offence in Clause 16:

“Collecting information for use in immigration crime”.


While we welcome the inclusion of the defence of “reasonable excuse” in Clause 16 and the inclusion of those examples already contained in the Bill, we consider there to be a notable and concerning omission, namely an exception for those providing legitimate legal advice and preparing legitimate legal claims.

Given that I have just received an email from those representing lawyers stating that the Ministry of Justice has increased the amount of pay that it is giving for immigration lawyers—it is not sufficient, I am told by the lawyers’ association, but there is nothing surprising about that—it would be very strange indeed if they were to be subject to any danger from providing that legitimate advice. Because those who represent asylum seekers in the UK provide legal advice about their rights and publicise their work, they should be confident that they will not be caught by one of the offences, given the wide drafting of the Bill. Although the Bill does not necessarily preclude a defence for such individuals, in our view, they should be specifically exempt from prosecution, otherwise those providing legal services to vulnerable individuals will be left in an uncertain position, which, in turn, will create an unjustified risk to access to justice and the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my chairmanship of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

I want to address Amendment 67, which my noble friend Lord Davies has just referred to. I tabled this with a very specific issue in mind—I hope the Minister will be able to address it in his closing remarks—which is those circumstances where somebody who is in slavery is put on to a boat but is forced as part of their slavery to take charge of a child and therefore is potentially endangering that child, but they are doing so because their slave driver has required them to do it. It is a very specific point, and I hope that the Minister can address it.

The Minister will recognise that there is a theme in all the amendments I have tabled, which is recognising that there are circumstances in which people are forced to take these actions as a result of their being in slavery, as opposed to it being a decision that they have taken for their own economic reasons. There is a small group of people to whom this might refer, so this is a probing amendment to see where the Government might stand on the issue and how they will want to address this very specific case of somebody who is forced by their traffickers or slave drivers to look after somebody else on a boat.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have probably exhausted the use of recklessness—we have had it, virtually, in every other group—but, in essence, I also have a very specific issue to raise in respect of the amendment in my name, which, again, is about ensuring that the right people are criminalised. It is about those who are coerced into steering the dinghies which have been made available.

Paragraph 57 of the JCHR report refers to research by the associate director of border criminology at Oxford University, who said that

“the most common reasons for driving the dinghy were being under duress from smugglers in Northern France; needing a discount on the crossing; or having previous experience driving boats, either from previous employment or irregular journeys”.

There are differences between those groups, and it is the group of people who are under duress that are of interest in this amendment.

First, I want to be clear that the actions of criminals who run the boats in northern France are appalling. They have total disregard for human life. They are not a benevolent facilitator of asylum seekers but criminals who see this trade as a source of great profit. I was able to see a number of those dinghies in the last two weeks, and I heard from the French authorities about some of the actions and tactics that the smugglers adopted towards migrants to evade law enforcement and maximise profit by cramming as many people as they can on to those flimsy boats.

I want to explain something to people who often ask me, “Why don’t you just cut and slash the boat?” There was an example of that last week when the French authorities went into the water but slashed only one cylinder. The reason for that is that those boats have no solid base inside between the floating parts. If you slash them, the boat folds in half and drowns all the people already in the middle of the boat. Therefore, the French authorities are most concerned about taking that sort of action and are much more concerned about going for the motors, which is what I hope they will be doing in the coming weeks. It is right that those forcing people on to these boats should face the full force of the law. Having seen the flimsiness of them, I am absolutely convinced that it is all about making huge amounts of money.

The problem is that this offence is drawn more widely than the Government have set out as their intention. If we are looking solely at people who are coerced or compelled to steer the boat under duress from the smugglers, that is not very much different from the coercion of victims of trafficking, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in this and previous amendments. As the clause is currently drafted, it is not focused sufficiently on those who the Government wish to target and would also catch those asylum seekers who are victims of coercion. I am told that you can identify the people who have been steering these boats: the heat from the very cheap engines means that people get burns on their hands as a result of doing it. I know that the British and the French authorities can easily identify who has been steering a boat; the difficulty is whether that person has been coerced into it. That is why this amendment is in place—simply to give an opportunity to understand what the Government would do in those circumstances.

I appreciate that, in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister stated that:

“In practice, the focus will be intelligence-led and targeted at those who law enforcement believe to be working in connection with organised criminal networks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 128.]


It was also stated that

“the CPS will exercise … discretion, and the courts will be able to consider all the circumstances when deciding the appropriate sentence”.

While prosecutorial discretion is an important safeguard, maybe it is not a substitute for clarity within the Bill itself. On that very specific matter, I ask the Minister to give his consideration.

I must also say, in respect of the earlier amendments that we have just heard, that it seems to me that the Conservative Party wants to treat everyone in the boat as a criminal. If that is the case, does the Minister agrees or disagree with that? If he agrees, what is the consequence of treating asylum seekers as criminals when they arrive in our country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I think there is a common aim in the Committee to ensure that we take action to prevent illegal migration, dangerous crossings and fatalities at sea. While we may have different views on some of the issues, this is a common aim that we all share. The endangerment offence, which we will talk about now, is a tangible measure to address dangerous acts during crossings and introduces consequences for such behaviour that risks or causes serious injury or death.

A number of amendments have been brought forward by noble Lords. I start, if I may, with Amendments 63 and 64, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Amendment 64 seeks to apply the offence to any individual who enters the UK illegally using a vessel that they could not reasonably have thought was safe for the purposes of reaching the UK, and Amendment 63 seeks to remove reference to specific countries.

I understand the intention of Amendment 63. The named countries in Clause 18 are appropriate to capture the focus on channel crossings, which is the Government’s main focus with this legislation, and provide clarity on which body of water is the focus. The reason we have looked at the particular three countries named in the Bill is that that is where the majority of the focus is today. I understand the points that the noble Lord has mentioned, but this has been done to focus the approach on channel crossings.

Amendment 64 would fundamentally alter the focus of Clause 18. Instead of targeting specific acts, this amendment would criminalise any person for boarding an unsafe vessel. The reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means the amendment would capture all those making a journey. Is it in the public and taxpayer interest to put every small boat arrival through the criminal justice system? I sense agreement from the noble Lord, Lord German, on that point.

The Government do not condone crossings, far from it. Noble Lords have heard during this debate that we are focused on taking action. However, the decision to board these flimsy boats is often made in chaotic circumstances, with the condition of the boat and the passage outside the individual’s control. We saw some of this in pictures at the weekend when the French took action. Setting out what is reasonable in that scenario is almost impossible, and what may be judged safe in one moment may quickly change. The weekend’s events showed that very clearly. Furthermore, adding the requirement of an unsafe vessel does not add to existing offences of illegal entry and arrival. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that explanation.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require that the relevant act was done “intentionally or recklessly”. Amendment 66, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the act to be committed intentionally and/or for financial gain. I recognise the intention behind requiring that the person committed the act intentionally or recklessly. That mirrors the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I will respond to before Report. I thank the committee for its work and will consider its conclusions carefully. However, the amendment as currently proposed would undermine the effectiveness of the offence. Focusing on whether someone commits an act intentionally or recklessly pulls the focus of the offence away from the serious harm or risk of such harm caused to vulnerable people in these situations and, crucially, would make it easier for criminals to evade the offence.

Adding a requirement for financial gain would undermine the intended effect. A person does not immediately need to financially gain for it to be appropriate for there to be consequences for dangerous acts that cause or risk serious injury or death of another. The amendment conflates measures in the Bill that tackle the facilitators behind small boat crossings and those, such as the endangerment offence, that are a response to the serious harms posed by individual actions. Those who cause risk or harm should face consequences.

The endangerment offence rightly targets the most dangerous forms of behaviour and offers increased sentencing. Existing safeguards are in place. Prosecution services will, as I have said throughout the Bill, consider the particular facts of a case and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord German, that the offence has been designed to be proportionate and effective, and addresses the most dangerous behaviour in order to reduce harm.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for Amendment 67. This may bring her a sense of déjà vu but I am going to say pretty much what I said in the last group of amendments. It is our assessment that Section 45 of the legislation that she facilitated in 2015 is a defence against prosecution where an individual commits the offence as a direct result of, or is compelled to commit an offence as a result of, their exploitation. The example the noble Baroness helpfully gave of a person entering a boat to save a child would be covered by Section 45 of that Act. It includes the catch-all defence of modern slavery for actions deemed to be criminal under this legislation. The national referral mechanism, which I know the noble Baroness is familiar with, is part of that defence, and I hope that those safeguards are in place.

On top of that, we have the standard prosecutorial defence mechanism whereby the prosecution—the CPS in this case—would have to make a judgment. The example that the noble Baroness has given would, I think, give pause for thought for that discretion by the CPS. With the general criminal defence of duress, I hope those two issues together will reassure the noble Baroness on that point.

The new endangerment offence addresses the current gap in legislation. We have specifically and carefully designed it to address dangerous acts that create further risk in what are already dangerous crossings. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments. It is about focus on the channel. It is about making sure that we give proper protections where required and that we have clarity in the law. I hope that they will not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister to the cut-and-paste threat which has been put upon him. I hope that there is a satisfactory answer that will make me smile. If it does not, then maybe there is a point to be made somewhere.

I echo the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about Amendment 209. It has been a promise to this House from many reports—from legislation committees and from the Constitution Committee—that, where there is a matter of seriousness and public interest, the affirmative process should be used to bring these matters before the House. The current arrangement is for a police constable, authorised by a superintendent, but there is an openness for Ministers to extend these powers. You might say that it does not matter to whom they give the powers and, if anybody feels really upset about it, they could pray against the Motion, which is a very rare thing in this House and in the House of Commons. What it means is that the Government are not prepared to allow that public scrutiny to ensure that they have got the matter right.

It would be a sensible approach to follow the pattern that the Lords committee responsible for these matters has laid before us and to change this from a negative to an affirmative procedure when regulations are brought forward to extend the list of people who will have these powers. I also take note of the interesting comment from my noble friend about who in the Home Office will supervise whom about what access anybody can have. I would like to know a little about the chiefs and the Indians if possible, please.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord German. Amendments 68, 69 and 209 raise important questions about the scope, application and oversight of the powers in the Bill.

I will address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around Clauses 20 to 23 being lifted from the Illegal Migration Act. The noble Lord, Lord German, is smiling already; maybe he anticipates a cracking punchline—but there is not one. It is a simple fact that, clearly, one of the chief intentions of this legislation is to replace the Illegal Migration Act. It was deemed easier in drafting terms to do that and then include certain sections that were deemed worthy of keeping in this Bill, rather than simply have to go back and unpick the Illegal Migration Act in different parts of the Bill. It was felt that this was a cleaner way of doing it. I am not sure if that has made the noble Lord, Lord German, smile; it has not particularly raised a laugh with me, but there we go.

While I recognise the intentions behind each proposal, I will respectfully set out why the Government do not support them. In each case, the current drafting of the Bill is deliberate and proportionate and designed to ensure operational effectiveness, legal clarity and appropriate safeguards.

Amendment 68 seeks to limit Clause 19 by removing what is perceived to be a retrospective effect. I want to be clear that Clause 19(2)(a) does not operate retrospectively in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The powers in the clause come into effect only after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The clause has been carefully drafted to ensure that powers apply regardless of when an individual entered or arrived in the UK before that date.

This is not retrospective legislation. Individuals who entered the UK without leave did so in breach of immigration laws that were already in place at the time of their entry. The clause does not impose a new penalty for past conduct. Instead, it enables the powers to be used from the moment they come into force, provided that the individual still meets the relevant criteria at that time. This approach ensures that the law can respond effectively to ongoing encounters of individuals who have already arrived illegally in the UK and does not create loopholes that could be exploited by those who may look to take advantage of immigration controls.

The amendment, while well intentioned, would narrow the scope of Clause 19(2)(a) and undermine its operational effectiveness. It would create a two-tier system, in effect, treating individuals differently based on the timing of their entry or whether they are subject to a deportation order, and result in missed opportunities to gain valuable information to stop organised immigration crime groups. In summary, the clause as drafted strikes the right balance: it is not retrospective in its legal effect, and it is forward-looking in its application. It ensures that the Government can act decisively to protect the integrity of UK borders and uphold the rule of law.

I turn now to Amendment 69, which proposes to broaden the definition of a “relevant article” to include any article containing information on the commission of an offence under any of the immigration Acts, as defined in Section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007. While I understand the desire to ensure comprehensive coverage of immigration offences, I must respectfully oppose this amendment too.

The current drafting of Clause 19 is deliberately narrow and targeted. It focuses on offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, offences that relate specifically to facilitating unlawful immigration and assisting illegal entry. These are the offences most relevant to the operational intent of this clause: to disrupt organised criminal networks and protect the integrity of our borders. Expanding the definition to include all offences under the immigration Acts risks capturing a wide range of minor or administrative breaches, such as overstaying or failing to comply with conditions, which are not the intended focus of this power. Our concern here is that such a broad approach could undermine the proportionality of the measure and expose it to legal challenge.

Amendment 209 seeks to amend Clause 60 so that regulations made pursuant to Clause 25 are subject to the affirmative procedure, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, and recommended by the Lords Constitution Committee. While we fully respect the committee’s role in scrutinising delegated powers, we respectfully disagree with the necessity of this amendment and the affirmative procedure.

Clause 25 does not create new powers; rather, it allows for the extension of existing powers to a broader cohort of authorised officers. The use of the negative procedure in this context is appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, Clause 25(3) provides an important safeguard that the Secretary of State is required to include such safeguards as they consider necessary. This ensures that any extension of powers is accompanied by appropriate checks and balances. The negative procedure is appropriate for this type of technical and operational regulation, which ensures agility without unduly compromising oversight. Regulations made under the negative procedure are still laid before Parliament and subject to annulment, providing a clear route for scrutiny while avoiding unnecessary delay in operational matters. Conversely, requiring the affirmative procedure in this case would introduce unnecessary delay and complexity into what is a targeted and operationally focused provision that must be able to respond agilely to any challenges. The negative procedure strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical implementation. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I begin by reaffirming the policy position of the Government for the use of search and seizure powers, which is an approach grounded in the principles of proportionality, accountability and the rule of law. The amendments in my name before the Committee today have an underpinning policy objective, and that is to ensure that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the necessary powers to search for, seize, retain and use information from electronic devices belonging to irregular entrants or arrivals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an electronic device is likely to contain information relevant to the offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. These powers are vital to disrupt organised crime groups. We must ensure that authorised officers are fully equipped to use the powers effectively and we must have safeguards in place against misuse.

Government Amendment 70 expands the definition of “authorised officer” to include

“a constable of the Police Service of Scotland … Northern Ireland, or … an NCA officer”.

This now ensures that constables from devolved police services and the National Crime Agency, who were already authorised, may exercise the full powers available to them under the legislation.

The National Crime Agency-focused amendments that follow on from government Amendment 70—Amendments 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 92 and 94—collectively ensure that NCA officers have all the relevant safeguards and protections and legal clarity in using these powers. Government Amendments 75, 79 and 92 require that the NCA officers exercising powers under Clauses 20, 21 and 23 must be authorised by an officer of at least inspector equivalent grade with the requirement to inform a superintendent or equivalent officer, in line with safeguards applied to police constables.

Government Amendments 77 and 81 provide protections under paragraphs 21 and 22 of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, ensuring that those who obstruct or assault an NCA officer during the exercise of their powers under Clauses 20 and 21 may face criminal prosecution. Government Amendment 80 enables NCA officers to use reasonable force where necessary in the execution of their powers under Clause 21. Government Amendments 82 and 83 provide for the lawful transfer of seized items to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State. I apologise for the number of amendments but I hope that they are all relatively straightforward. Government Amendment 94 provides legal clarity by defining “NCA officer” within Clause 26.

These amendments are necessary and proportionate to enable officers to perform their duties effectively. The National Crime Agency, as noble Lords will know, is the central agency in combating serious and organised immigration crime, and previously the Bill sought to include NCA officers by enabling them to use their immigration powers. However, NCA officers are triple warranted, holding the powers of constable, immigration officer and customs officer. Through ongoing engagement with the NCA, it became clear that it would be more operationally effective for the Bill explicitly to enable them to exercise their police powers under this legislation.

Government Amendment 70 extends these powers to the devolved police services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that we have consistency across the United Kingdom as a whole. Members will know that criminal organisations do not respect administrative boundaries and will operate wherever they can. Due to the inclusion now of devolved police services, government Amendment 89 ensures that appropriate legal procedures are in place for the disposal of relevant articles held by constables of Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

There are several consequential amendments—Amendments 85, 86, 87, 88 and 93—which are minor and technical in nature, but will, I hope, help to ensure the legal coherence of the Bill. In essence, the amendments extend powers to the NCA, police in Scotland and police in Northern Ireland, with appropriate safeguards. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord German (LD)]

To be absolutely clear, are there further amendments in this area to Clause 33 concerning trailers, or is that covered in this group? I will give the Minister time to think about that.

The Minister sent us a letter on 17 June relating to these amendments. On Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers, the letter said that an amendment had been tabled to Clause 33(9)—this is why I ask the question—which specifies the persons and bodies to be consulted before making regulations under Clause 33(8), which is about trailer data. It says that: “at present, this amendment is framed in such a way that the Northern Ireland and Scottish Ministers need be consulted only where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so”. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider it appropriate so to do? If he wants to answer some time later, that would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I have just double-checked all the amendments that have been laid, and there is none as was laid out in the letter. I will not ask the Minister to reply to this, but it is a lacuna. The letter says that an amendment has been tabled to Clause 33(9). According to the Marshalled List, it is not there. I do not expect a substantive reply, but I guess that an amendment will be laid, and the letter was slightly inaccurate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I have been clear with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, about what these amendments are for. As ever, as Ministers we all know that things are organic and in development. If requests come in, loopholes are found or things need to be tightened up, amendments are part of the parliamentary process, as is reflection on amendments that colleagues table on Report in both Houses from the Opposition and other Benches. It is an organic process. I hope I was clear, and I do not think he objects to the principle behind why they have been tabled. I am grateful for his support.

In reply to the noble Lord, I will just say that I do not write inaccurate letters. I try to be open and fair, which is why the letter was issued. We are not yet at Clause 33; I will give him chapter and verse on all the issues that he has raised when we get there, which is the appropriate part in our proceedings to discuss those matters.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

For those reasons, these amendments do not stand up. With all due respect, the case has not been made by noble Lords and it would be damaging to amend the Bill in this way. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, what we have just heard is not unexpected. I understand that the Conservative Benches really want to stop everyone from coming across and making those dangerous crossings, which everyone would want to do, but it is quite surprising that we are debating how these matters will work between ourselves and France when the man holding the reins of the other half of this continent is in the next room to us, telling Members what he thinks on these matters. So I ask the Minister what he has heard so far about the issue of the exchange mechanism that has been trailed in our newspapers so strongly.

Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for acting as what the Minister called the “super-prop” or the “super-sub” last week when some of us were away working in the Council of Europe.

On these very particular amendments, it is my reading of the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these two amendments were agreed unanimously by all committee members, including the Conservatives. If that is the case, it is not just simply a matter of people saying, “We want to try and stop this happening in broader terms”, but there are Conservative members who have looked very closely at this particular part of the legislation, are trying to work out what is most appropriate and have committed themselves to it, both in this House and in the other House as well.

First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised the issue that having to prove yourself not guilty is not something we do in this country. You have to be charged, but you do not have to go into the case from the other end of it. The issue here before us is what it will capture in that state between people who might or might not be guilty of what they are being charged with.

For example, two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to go to the northern coast of France and meet all the French authorities, from the préfecture downwards right through to on the beaches. One of the things pointed out to me was a Catholic centre where people were being helped because of normal life. They were being helped with food and trying to get appropriate clothing, and they were also being given SIM cards. If the Catholic priest who was giving out the SIM cards is going to be caught by this legislation, we ought to be very careful about the words that we use.

The change is in the words “intends that” from “knows or suspects that”. Though the cases we are going to discuss later are very proper and important offences, they are really focused on the smugglers and not the smuggled, and the smugglers getting 15 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence before us, yet the only test of getting into that process is whether somebody knows or suspects that a relevant article will be used by a person in connection to an offence.

So it is not that simple to simply say there is no link between the nature of the offence and the target for it. I am rather hoping that the Minister will tell us that this is a very tricky issue, it is something in respect of human rights that has been reflected throughout our law—international law as well as the law of our own country, both put together—and in the international conventions: not just those we were a signatory to but those we signed up to and those we created, and not just the ECHR but others as well.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way? I am listening with great care. If I can direct him back to the issue of reverse burden of proof, he will know that this is not unusual—it is not common, but it is not unprecedented. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that, if someone is found with a blade in a public place and the prosecution proves possession, the defendant must prove they had a good reason for possessing it. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a reverse burden on the defendant to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the offence. These things are not unusual. For such an important public safety issue, surely the noble Lord will concede that it is not unusual or unprecedented for the Government to seek to take these matters in the legislation in the way they will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord— I knew there was a word for it. We do not deny that there are examples on the statute book, but we objected to them at the time.

[Lord German (LD)]

I think the answer is related to the nature of the offence which is before us. An offence which is punishable by a 15-year maximum jail sentence is a very serious and big crime to have committed. To put it simply, the suspicion threshold is seldom applied in our criminal law because such a low threshold —the noble Lord was saying that there are examples—is a disproportionate response to where someone has not been intending to commit a crime and with such a disproportionate sense of what harm they might be doing. The balance between the nature of the offence and the nature of the judgment which creates that offence is what is disproportionate.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

In this discussion about reverse burden of proof, something is being missed here, which is why the knife example the noble Lord gave was not a good one. There are two parts to the test in Clause 13, which is that you have to have supplied the article but also have to know or suspect the use to which it is going to be put. So it is not just enough for somebody to show that you did the thing; the prosecution has to prove that you knew or suspected something as well. So that is not a good example, and therefore it does not flip the burden of proof around. It still lies with the prosecution.

[Lord German (LD)]

I did not use the example of a knife. I can refer the Member to the Hansard of the previous day in Committee, which I have already apologised for not being at it because I was working with colleagues on immigration matters in another parliament at which this Parliament is represented. It would be unwise to try and deal with arguments that we had last week, of which I was not a part, but I simply say that the relationship between the offence in this case and the threshold which is being put before it is not significant. I suspect that we will treat and think about this throughout the course of the debate on the whole Bill today when we relate ourselves to the fact that this is meant to be aimed at the smugglers.

One of the things in common to all the people on the north coast of France, who represent so many different parts of the structure that is trying to stop the people taking these dangerous routes, was that they were concentrating on the smugglers. Everything was determined in terms of how they could get at the smugglers, and protecting human life and being humane in what they do as well.

The challenge in the Bill as we go through, and to the Minister, who I hope will give me a hopeful reply on what the man in the next room is saying, is the fact that this is a distinction between making very powerful offences for challenging those who are guilty of this horrible crime of taking people in terrible conditions on what are very dangerous routes indeed.

I have just one final point about the messages which smugglers send to the people who are going to be smuggled. I am sure they will not be saying, “You’d better be careful: the British are changing their laws in these directions”. As we were told by those who intercept their telephones in France, it is much more about where they should go and what they should avoid going to, what they should avoid doing and what they should do in terms of getting their journey. That is really the whole challenge from the smugglers. I welcome the response from the JCHR on the reason why, unanimously, it posed and passed these resolutions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful that he ended on that note, because I just want, for the sake of the record, to say that although paragraphs 1 to 52 were agreed unanimously, the entire report was not—two members voted against and one abstained—but it was a very thorough report, conducted, I might say, on all sides with a great deal of diligence and thoroughness. All my colleagues participated in that in a robust way, as the noble Lord might imagine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I make just one technical point. We are here to discuss whether or not these amendments are going to work if they are passed.

Amendment 35, for example, deals with the defence of reasonable excuse by reference to a number of international conventions. I am a bit concerned as to how a court is going to direct a jury in respect to that. Certainly, it is arguable that they should reflect those conventions. As the amendment is currently framed, that is going to be legally very difficult. It is not normally the way these things are done. There should perhaps be some definition which embodies what is contained in those conventions, rather than simply reciting them as a list, because I do not think a court is going to find that very easy to interpret.

Incidentally, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the insertion of the word “reckless” does not help in terms of clarity. It is one of the most difficult words in the legal context. Courts of all levels have struggled to find any clarity with the word “reckless”.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the debate has obviously spanned beyond the amendments before us, but it is worth stating at the outset that the focus of these amendments is to determine that the provisions are aimed at the particular people who are breaking the law—the smugglers. The focus has to be that it helps law enforcement and the judiciary to focus their resources on the people that the Government really want to apprehend in order to tackle the criminal gangs. There are words—which I will come to in a moment—on which I agree a different definition might be more helpful, but it is worth while repeating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the international regulations and rules that guide us and we put around ourselves and the importance of those.

I am reluctant to go into this field of the reinterpretation of the ECHR, but one mistake relates to the fact that some countries signed an unaddressed letter which gave no indication whatever of what changes to the ECHR they were looking for. The person who was supposed to receive it read about it in the newspapers. I contrast that arrangement, where nothing could be made of the letter because it gave no sense of what was to be changed, to the approach of the British Secretary of State for Justice, who approached the matter in a proper manner and spoke to the people concerned, the right Committee of Ministers, who are responsible for any review of the ECHR. There is already a set of motions in place to enable that discussion to occur. It would be worth while trying to understand what people in other countries want to do and what they need to happen in order to change, but those discussions are under way because, essentially, this is a living document that needs to be changed, interpreted and looked at as time goes by, and that is happening at present.

We should be clear that these amendments would simply treat the people who are coming here with a deal of compassion. I absolutely agree that we have to separate genuine asylum seekers from the rest. We cannot do that by our own legislation until they arrive here. There are no routes by which people can arrive here, apart from the few which would not affect the people from the countries who are most affected in this matter. What makes sense with these amendments—maybe not entirely in the words they use—is that they are trying to distinguish who we are going for and who we are gunning at, as it were.

Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that the scope of the offences in Clauses 13 and 14 apply only to the smugglers. The amendments seek to link the offences to financial and material gain. If there is another way of explaining the financial and material gain as being the method by which you determine a smuggler, then obviously it would be worth noting.

In that respect, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about how to deal effectively with the migrants situation. Fortunately, I went to visit the site of the Jungle in Calais two weeks ago. It is now fields; there is nothing there but fields, grass and animals grazing, and that is because the French authorities dealt with groups of people to make sure that they fit with the strategy they are adopting. They had no complaints about the way that was working at the present time. Maybe times have changed, and maybe people need to be thinking differently.

Amendment 35 proposes that the defence excuse in Clause 13 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”—

and that is the question. In mentioning “certain circumstances”, one needs to define what those circumstances are; otherwise, the courts would not be able to make the appropriate case work.

Amendment 38 suggests that the scope of offence of Clause 14 should include for financial or material gain. That is the distinguishing factor between those who are smuggled and those who are not.

Amendment 44 suggests that the defence excuse in Clause 14 should ensure protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, one has to define the words “certain circumstances”, because otherwise it becomes too general.

Amendment 57 suggests that the reasonable excuse defence in Clause 16 should ensure the protection of

“refugees, smuggled persons, and victims of trafficking, in certain circumstances”.

Again, that wording needs to be tightened up.

Finally, Amendment 203 would provide

“a statutory defence for refugees in certain circumstances”

for the offences in Clauses 13, 14 and 16. Obviously, there is a need for tightening up in this matter to ensure that we can separate out the people for whom the Bill is intended to deal with: those who are causing the misery, those who are trafficking and those who are smuggling and those who are spread around Europe to make sure that these schemes work. These are the people whom the Bill should be aimed at and is aimed at. All these amendments would do is make sure that we entirely focus our efforts on those people who are causing these criminal acts.

Therefore, I suggest that these amendments have a right sense of direction in what they intend. They enshrine the international regulations which we sit within. It is not just one convention; it is quite clear from the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that there are a raft of international conventions, laws and rules that we sit behind. We are part of that international way of dealing with matters, and if we lose that way of dealing with it and do not follow it through, we will never be able to solve something which is so international in its nature.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their speeches in this group. Again, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the rationale behind these amendments. The general thrust of all noble Lords’ amendments, however, is to seek to impose further limits on the exercise of legal powers designed to tackle people-smuggling gangs and their supply chains.

On all these new offences, we need to be both clear and bold in providing our law enforcement agencies and our courts with the legal tools and powers they need to be robust in tackling the gangs, who are both the root cause of and the major beneficiaries from this problem. We on these Benches have rightly criticised the Government for the rhetoric around smashing the gangs—which in our view, at least at the moment, is empty rhetoric—but it is a clear fact that we need to tackle the criminal gangs, and it is right that we use this as an opportunity to shape our legislative framework so that we can do that as effectively as possible.

Amendments 33 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would add an additional demand: for the person to have committed an offence, it must be demonstrated as well that they have financially benefited from the supply of a relevant article for use in connection with an offence. Again, I understand the rationale and the intentions behind the amendment, but I put myself against it and support the current Government—again, a slightly rare position to be in. Unlike other aspects of the Bill, it seems clear to us on these Benches that, as it stands, the text of Clauses 13, 14 and 16, which create these offences, is adequate, clear and sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

46: Clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) their action was—(i) solely as part of their own journey, and(ii) they did not gain financially from the action.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 46 and 55 in my name. We are again back to this issue of ensuring that refugees, victims of modern slavery, are not unfairly prosecuted for behaviour committed due to coercion or exploitation. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that the focus of the Bill is the smugglers. The problem is that there is no stipulation in the Bill that to be guilty, the person must be a trafficker or a smuggler. We want to ensure that refugees, victims of modern slavery, cannot be unfairly prosecuted for behaviour committed in the course of their actions.

Amendment 46 seeks to set out in Clause 14 that those involved in organised immigration crime, rather than those seeking asylum, are the ones who are to be prosecuted, by strengthening the statutory defence, which we have already heard from the Minister concerns finance. I am always open to suggestions on how else you might distinguish between an asylum seeker and a smuggler, in which case one could extend the definition.

The offences this Bill creates are very substantial, and rightly so. We support them. In Clause 14, on handling articles for use in immigration crime, there is a 14-year maximum prison sentence. It is the same for Clause 16, with five years’ imprisonment in Clause 18 and six years’ and five years’ imprisonment in further clauses. These are substantial periods of imprisonment, and these are substantial cases, so it is very important that nothing happens that allows people to slip through the net. Given the severity of those four sentences, it is critical that we take a very careful approach to drafting the new offences, in order to safeguard against any unintended consequences such as the criminalisation of those seeking asylum.

The Bill, of course, as we now know, is widely drafted for prosecution to try to deliberately catch those acting at a distance from, as well as close to, the acts of smuggling. The broad construction of these offences as currently drafted could unintentionally catch vulnerable individuals such as asylum seekers and victims of trafficking. We have already heard the case of the young man who was forced to drive one of these very unsafe boats across the channel and was prosecuted as a result of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again for the amendments that have been tabled and for the approach of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in relation to them. Again, I think there will be many areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has responded to the debate today.

I reassure noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Dubs, that care has been taken to ensure that these offences have the flexibility to target the smuggling gangs and do not unjustly impact or endanger those who are exploited by them. I have said that in other groups, I may say it again in further groups, and I am saying it again in this group: that is the target for government action.

Amendment 46 seeks to amend Clause 14 to ensure that individuals are not criminalised for handling items relating to their own journey, provided they did so solely for personal use and received no financial gain. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that Clause 14 already provides a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses; cases can be assessed individually; and prosecutors will consider the public interest as well as specific guidance relating to immigration crimes, including whether there is clear evidence of a credible common-law defence of duress or duress of circumstances, and whether the immigration offence was committed as a necessary part of a refugee’s journey to the United Kingdom. That will all be done before pursuing charges, with the clear intent—going back to my noble friend Lord Dubs—of targeting smugglers and not those who are exploited by them.

There is a list of humanitarian items that are carved out from these provisions. Items outside this list that facilitate organised immigration crime are easily shared, taken or given to others to hold, further risking creating loopholes, as items used in organising immigration crime can easily be transferred or misrepresented as for personal use. That again goes to the very heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which is that enforcement would be significantly more difficult if the proposed amendments were accepted. These offences are designed to enable law enforcement to act earlier and faster at the preparatory stages of an offence, potentially saving lives at sea and in the back of lorries. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the amendment, which would hamper that objective.

Amendments 46 and 55 aim to add a financial gain element to the “reasonable excuse” defence. Again, I respectfully oppose the amendments. These offences target criminal gangs at an early planning stage when financial gain is not necessarily yet evident. Introducing a requirement in the clauses for financial gain would significantly constrain law enforcement’s ability to intervene early and disrupt organised gangs before a crossing occurs and before money changes hands.

Again, there is complexity in cash flows in these criminal cases, and it is impossible and impractical to exempt those without clear financial gain. Doing so would shift undue burden on to law enforcement to prove gain and would undermine effective prosecution. That would not be appropriate or proportionate, particularly given the life-threatening risks we have seen in the channel, where people smuggling is present. It would also undermine the opportunity for early intervention that the offences are designed to facilitate. Where there is evidence of involvement in organised criminal activity, such as facilitating illegal crossings, through the commission of these offences, prosecution should be possible regardless of whether financial gain can be shown.

I turn to Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Again, I share common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on these matters. Amendment 51 proposes adding phones and chargers to the list of exempt items in Clause 15. Clauses 13 and 14 do not criminalise specific items; they target the supply or handling of items with knowledge or suspicion that they will be used in immigration crime.

The key issue remains intent. Everybody in the Committee today will recognise that phones are commonly used by smuggling gangs to co-ordinate crossings. Law enforcement agencies must retain the ability to act when such items are knowingly supplied for criminal purposes. A blanket exemption would create a significant loophole and weaken our ability to disrupt smuggling operations. Mobile phones are used to organise criminal gangs and therefore it is not practical or feasible to exempt them from the proposals in the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for speaking to Amendments 50 and 62 tabled by my noble friend Lord Browne. The amendments aim to exclude the offences from being considered a “particularly serious crime” under the 1951 refugee convention. The offences would be considered as particularly serious crimes—this is an important point for my noble friend—only if the sentence reaches the 12-month threshold. A court would have to consider all the circumstances of the offence in detail. If it imposed a sentence of more than 12 months, it is right that that is treated as particularly serious. The individual can still show that they are not a danger to the community.

This year alone—this goes to the heart of all the amendments—there have been 14 deaths at sea. I cannot agree that taking part in and providing means and methods for vulnerable people to risk their lives at sea in increasingly overloaded and poor-quality vessels and in the back of transit lorries should not be considered a serious crime. Amendments 50 and 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne aim to exclude those offences as being considered particularly serious under the 1951 refugee convention.

I reassure my noble friend that there is a minimum sentencing requirement for the offence to be categorised as a particularly serious crime. It is right that this offence be treated as a particularly serious crime if the sentence imposed by the court is of at least 12 months, as I just mentioned, as provided by Section 62 of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002. The court will be able to consider carefully whether the offence is appropriate when imposing such a sentence. Also, it is still open to an individual to demonstrate that they did not constitute a danger to the community for the purposes of Article 33(2), thereby retaining protection against the matter being brought before them.

Amendment 56 proposes a statutory defence for those researching a journey for a close family member. Proving close family relationships is very complex and, I contend, is handled best on a case-by-case basis. Clause 16 already includes a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, and each case is assessed individually. Prosecutors—this is key and we have discussed it in earlier groups—will consider the public interest before pursuing charges, with the clear intent of targeting smugglers, not those exploited by them. This is a common theme running through all my responses to the groups of amendments to date—the aim of the UK Government, in co-operation now with authorities from other nations, is to target the smugglers, not those exploited by them.

Amendment 51B would require the Secretary of State to consult organisations assisting asylum seekers before making additions to the list of carved-out articles under this legislation. I know that this is a well-meaning and well-intentioned proposal, but it is not necessary or appropriate in the context of this clause. The articles for use in immigration crime offences concern the prevention of immigration crime and provide the opportunity to act quickly before lives are lost at sea and in the back of refrigerated lorries.

Clause 15 provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain items as carved out from this offence and the option for the Secretary of State to add to this list, but not to remove them without going through full parliamentary process. If we had formal consultation with external organisations before decisions could be made to add an item to the carve-out, that could introduce additional bureaucracy that would delay urgent action.

As noble Lords will know, immigration crime is dynamic and moving. We have seen this weekend how that dynamic movement can take place. The methods used by those who seek to exploit vulnerable individuals are evolving rapidly and the Government must retain the ability and flexibility to respond swiftly and decisively. I assure the Committee that there will be circumstances where, timing and circumstances permitting, we will always want to engage with charitable and voluntary organisations on these changes as appropriate. However, where lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I want to ensure that the objective of saving lives is paramount.

I hope I have answered the points raised by the Committee. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response but hope he will withdraw his amendment, and that noble Lords will reflect on what has been said.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. I understand the ambition he is setting out: that we are going for the smugglers, not the refugees. The problem is that the Bill, as we have been discussing, does not give us that definition clearly up front. In other words, what the Minister has been saying and his intention—I absolutely agree with him—need to be clearly somewhere or other in the Bill.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that he read out the first part of my amendment and then skipped over the second part, which is connected.

Migrants: Hotel Accommodation

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord could ask the previous Home Office Ministers under the last Administration, because all the contracts with the current asylum accommodation were signed by the previous Ministers. I am very happy to look at the issue, but I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that all the contracts were signed by previous Ministers under the last Administration.

[Lord German (LD)]

The accommodation is not suitable for either the community or the asylum seekers. Given that there are two main ways in which the Government could improve this situation dramatically, can the noble Lord tell us how they are getting on with reducing the backlog of cases being heard, and whether they will allow people to work so they can pay for their own accommodation?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this slightly uneven Bill. It is a Bill that is both heavy and light at the same time: it is heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but it is light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom. I start with an initial question for the Minister: is the intention of this Bill to stop dangerous journeys by boat and other ways, or is it to stop people coming to claim asylum? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the intention of this Bill.

We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, both stopping dangerous journeys and creating a safe route to asylum, with those who do not qualify for asylum being removed swiftly and humanely. For those in the margins, there are some who may be persuaded by the measures in this Bill. However, our concern must surely be for those who satisfy the grounds for asylum in the United Kingdom but currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. Of those who travel here by small boat, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that figure does not take any appeals into consideration.

The answer to my initial question is fundamental to understanding the Government’s intentions. We welcome the measures in the Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel. We support the scrapping of the safety of Rwanda Act and significant parts of the Illegal Migration Act. However, we are concerned that this Bill’s purely punitive approach will not achieve its aims. We must be honest about the range of interventions needed to bring change. Voters are tired of tougher talk on immigration that fails to deliver promised outcomes. As a country, we cannot afford the consequences of more broken government promises on this issue.

So, although prosecuting criminal gangs is essential, as long as desperate people seek refuge in the United Kingdom without alternative routes, demand will persist and criminals will profit. Given the strong push factors for those fleeing persecution in countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Iran, we need interventions that change an individual’s calculation. Currently, paying a smuggler to bring them to safety is seen as the best, or the only, option available. We propose building on the successful UK resettlement scheme, which has already been referred to by the Minister, and family refugee reunion, along with a capped pilot for a humanitarian visa. Using the services of United Nations bodies in-country or close to in-country, this would allow those with a basis for a successful asylum claim to travel safely to the UK in order for their application to be considered. If the Government aim to reduce dangerous crossings, this would help; the Government would control an ordered, planned process and create an evidence base to evaluate such an approach. Safe routes are not an alternative to enforcement. They complement efforts to target criminal gangs. Both approaches must work together.

We are rightly concerned at the expenditure costs of maintaining and accommodating the nearly a quarter of a million people, which includes those going through appeals, in the processing backlog. In our view, the Government have missed the opportunity to include in this legislation permission to allow asylum seekers to work after three months. Although we welcome the 13% decline in the asylum backlog, the proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the past decade, going from 25% at the end of 2014 to 59% at the end of 2024. When the current working ban was introduced by the Labour Government in 2002, the argument about processing times was identical—a six-month target to process applications, after which those granted asylum were able to work—but the six-month target was not met then and is not being met now.

Allowing asylum seekers to work would help reduce the asylum support budget, the use of hotels and child poverty. It would assist local authorities in supporting newly recognised refugees. If someone has a job, they are more likely to support themselves quickly, reducing homelessness and state benefits claims. It would also improve cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be “paying their way”. Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that, especially if communities saw hotels being closed.

The Government have never produced any evidence that suggests that employment rights play a role in determining people’s choice of destination when seeking safety; the evidence in fact shows that employment rights are largely unknown to asylum seekers before they arrive in the United Kingdom. We have one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would align the UK with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months, or even less. Faster application processing and enhanced working rights should be complementary policies. That is why we also seek a three-month service standard for asylum decisions.

We welcome the Government’s repeal of Sections 31 to 35 of the Illegal Migration Act. However, if integration is the ultimate goal for us as a society, we should not choke off a person’s chance to become a British citizen simply on the basis of how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Recent updates to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance limit access to citizenship for refugees who entered the UK irregularly. This is counterproductive to integration and cohesion for those settled in the UK. The unclear policy guidance deters refugees from applying for citizenship due to the risk of wasting thousands of pounds if the application is refused out of hand.

We have deep concerns about the expansion and retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act on the safe country list. The list is problematic when decision-makers must declare asylum claims inadmissible from countries listed even where there is evidence of persecution. An example of that is Georgia, where its Members of Parliament are being locked up because they have offended the current Government. That country has been sanctioned by the UK for human rights abuses. This means that individualised assessment of asylum claims is essential and necessary. Countries may be safe for some people, but not always for all people.

We are concerned that the Bill retains and expands the detention powers in the Illegal Migration Act without implementing the safeguards recommended by the Brook House inquiry. We remain deeply concerned about immigration detention and the lack of progress since the Brook House report’s recommendations. Recent reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Harmondsworth indicate ongoing significant concerns. Poor processes and case progression result in people being detained when removal is not imminent and for longer than necessary in unacceptable conditions. Vulnerable people are detained when they should not be. The indefinite nature of detention causes particular harm and places no pressure on the Home Office to deal swiftly with cases. For those reasons, we will seek to amend the Bill with a 28-day time limit on detention, following recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the joint inquiry by the APPGs on migration and on refugees. This would reduce unnecessary and unlawful detention and ensure that it is used sparingly and only when removal is imminent and realistic.

We are also concerned that the criminal offences in Clauses 13 to 16 and 18 are too broad and risk criminalising those seeking asylum rather than solely targeting criminal gangs. We will seek to amend these clauses in Committee. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will expand on the modern slavery implications of the Bill later.

Finally, there is much to be done to secure action across our part of this continent. Resetting our relationship with the EU and its agencies is still in its headline stages. My noble friend Lady Ludford will examine these issues later.

I return to where I started: the fundamental question of supply and demand and the Bill being light on its ability to change asylum seeker behaviour. While the Bill may make a dent in the ability of the smuggling gangs to operate, it fails to answer the question of how we plan a safe way to manage those seeking asylum in our country. The Bill has a number of good points, many missing points and some major areas of concern—and we will try to deal with those areas during the course of our debates.

UK Resettlement Scheme 2025

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord German]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in setting a quota for refugee resettlement through the UK Resettlement Scheme for 2025.

[Lord German (LD)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my interest that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The United Kingdom works closely with the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, to determine the appropriate quota in any given year. We are focusing on the delivery of existing commitments, and we will continue to work with the UNHCR on an appropriate quota for 2025.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. This is a safe and legal route, but, unfortunately, there are few people in the queue. The queue sometimes lasts five to seven years, and so, quite clearly, the United Nations authorities need time to prepare people to come here in waiting for that length of time. What they are doing in that queue, of course, is not going for routes that are dangerous—crossing the channel and so forth—so, given the importance of reducing the number of people who come via irregular routes, what assessment have the Government made of trying to make these allocations to the United Nations not sporadically but in a regular format with multi-year assessments?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK Government continue to discuss on a yearly basis with the UNHCR what the requirements and pressures are. As the noble Lord will know, both the previous Government and this Government have given safe and legal routes to around 680,000 people in the past 10 years alone. We are continuing to work with the agency and we are looking at that for next year—in my original Answer to the noble Lord, I said that we are looking at potential quotas for 2025. He makes an interesting suggestion for certainty, but we need to examine the requests of the UNHCR, what their demands on us are and how we can potentially accommodate any or all of those requests.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I just remind him that, in 2016, there were no hotels in use; in 2023, there were 400. We have a manifesto commitment to end the use of hotels. That is because his Government failed in their process, did not manage asylum claims properly, allowed small boat crossings to increase and wasted £700 million on a Rwanda scheme which deterred nobody. We will have some discussions and lessons from that, but let us look at what we are doing. Between the general election on 4 July and 31 January this year, we have removed 19,000 failed asylum seekers, increased enforced returns by 24%, increased illegal working arrests by 38%, removed 2,591 foreign national offenders and had the four biggest return charter flights in the history of return charter flights. I hope I can look forward to his co-operation to pick up the mess that he left behind.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I know that the Minister accepts that hotels are unsuitable accommodation and that there are other forms of accommodation which should be provided. I have two questions about how to do that, one of which is about reducing the numbers of people who are waiting to have their cases heard. First, can he tell us what efforts are being made to ensure that individuals can have their appeals heard in a timely way, with adequate legal representation, so that correct decisions are taken when they are first heard rather than having to go through many following steps? Secondly, we could remove this problem by allowing people to work and pay for their own accommodation, so have the Government assessed allowing people who are being kept in this long queue the opportunity to work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The real opportunity we are trying to take is to reduce the asylum backlog in the first place. If people claim asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom, from whatever source, we have a duty to assess that asylum claim. Sadly, the previous Government allowed that asylum claim backlog to balloon. We have tried to put in place 1,000 extra staff—funded by the resource that we have saved from scrapping the Rwanda scheme, which deterred nobody—who are now doing the very things that the noble Lord mentioned: reducing the asylum backlog and making sure that we deal with asylum claims. Those who are here can then go on to work and to provide their own accommodation. But there are also those who are not here, including the 19,000 we have removed between 4 July and 31 January, because we are speeding up asylum claims.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, it has become something of a trope to call the first day of the third week in January—that is today—Blue Monday, when people feel at their lowest and nothing much works. Sometimes people make that accusation of migration policy. When I got to work today, I was cheered, in the office where I am, to see that the people who run the building were making a valiant effort by turning Blue Monday into what they called “Brew Monday”. None the less, I think today is appropriate to debate the horrendous growth in the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels. This is still a fast-growing practice and it represents just the very tip of the iceberg of migration policy in the UK.

A generation ago, the problem seemed possible to handle. Numbers were much lower, and they were easily divisible into asylum seekers generally fleeing persecution and economic migrants seeking betterment; no more. The escalating numbers all seem to claim to be genuine asylum seekers needing lodging, while the ever-lengthening queue waits to be processed. The situation we are in is a major state failure by all parties, for government, political parties, think-tankers and policymakers are nowhere near a solution to the situation that faces us, despite great efforts, which I recognise, much thinking and huge expenditure. In saying this, I make no partisan attack on the Benches opposite; I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, of that.

All parties have had a go over the past 40 years, but when good ideas have emerged, such as using more redundant military camps, in the end, both major parties, Labour and Tory alike, have balked in the face of “No migrants in my backyard” protests. We might be a bit better off if we had not collectively balked at that. Of course, there have been all the headline-seeking suggestions about leaving the ECHR. Sure, some of those who make it to our shores might be easier to remove, but to send them back to where? It is a practical issue, and it is unlikely to stop migrants making the attempt in the first place anyway.

So, at the beginning of what I think over the years will come to be called “the long Parliament”, between now and 2029, it is absolutely right that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower should have introduced this Question for Short Debate. I want to ask the Minister whether HMG now—I cannot quite see it and I am happy to be educated by him, as he has done in the past—have a clear plan, underpinned by verifiable, practical policies, to have at least reversed, no better than that, present trends by Blue Monday 2029.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord German (LD)]

My apologies.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Sorry, the communication obviously was not good enough.

[Lord German (LD)]

My hearing aid is still out of action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for poking me on the shoulder, because my hearing aids were slightly inefficient in this process. I first declare my interests as set out in the register, that I am supported by RAMP. I am grateful to my noble friend because underpinning all the discussion today is the fact that we are talking about human beings here. We are talking about people who are fleeing for their lives or fleeing from danger in a way that we cannot actually assimilate, unless you have made those connections and seen it at close hand.

This has been an interesting debate. It has spread beyond the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, tabled, so I would like to focus on the issues. First, there is an acceptance that for people fleeing from these disastrous situations, long-term accommodation in hotels is just not suitable, particularly for families and children. While people are waiting for their asylum claims to be considered they should have safe, secure accommodation where they can cook for themselves and easily access local support and services and there is local support available from many sources. It is from this context that they will be more able to engage with the asylum process itself, effectively present their case for protection and start to feel secure and stable. It is true that accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is not appropriate for the communities in which they find themselves. It is also deeply unsuitable for the individuals themselves, so this situation has to be changed and altered.

One of the reasons why, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, is the cost to the other services we provide in the rest of the world. Our overseas development budget has already been pulled back to 0.5% from 0.7%, and I hope that we can get back to it, but huge chunks of that money have been used inside the United Kingdom and diverted from the sort of work which might help people not to make the journeys to other countries by improving their quality of life closer to home.

Last Thursday there was an Oral Question in which I talked about the opportunity of reducing reliance on hotels for asylum seekers by giving them the ability to pay for their own accommodation by granting them permission to work, and the Minister will not be surprised that I am returning to this matter. In the Minister’s reply he said:

“Sometimes … asylum seekers could be put in positions whereby they are undertaking work they have no legal right to do”.—[Official Report, 16/1/25; col. 1268.]


On these Benches, we support the three measures the Government are taking: cracking down on the gangs, producing shorter waiting lists and providing dispersed accommodation. Those are all perfectly proper. We would like to see the Government moving a step further, as the Government’s chair of the Migration Advisory Committee has said, by giving permission for people to work while they are waiting. There must surely be ways in which the Government can deal with what they think might be the problem. They say it might be a push factor, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, we are the outlier: we are one of only three countries in Europe which do not allow people to work.

The other area I think the Minister will be concerned about is people disappearing, but I believe that the opposite will be more likely. When people are in some form of secure work, they are not going to try to disappear into the black economy. I hope the Minister can produce evidence to the contrary of the assertion I am making, but there is no evidence that this will be the case.

In conclusion, I agree that the ideal would be to have asylum claims decided right first time, but within six months is clearly not happening. It is taking longer and longer, and the appeals backlog is causing that to happen. So can we expect the Government’s proposals in their White Paper to actually address some of these very key issues we are raising in this debate, particularly about how we are going to deal with people who are here in that queue, waiting for their decision to be made?